I truly believe that every person has the right to be zealously defended. What is at issue here is not Sullivan's right to defend Harvey Weinstein, but his obligations to students who are probably subject to sexual harassment, rape, and more. Why does anyone think that these two roles are, or even should be, compatible?
271
@Ftraylor
Lawyers who defend heinous criminals are all the more sympathetic to victims. Their research and close contact with the intimate details of these cases and the harm and suffering caused by crimes informs them and carries out into their lives.
If Sullivan deserved the trust of the student's in the first place, he will likely only become a more knowledgeable and helpful ally to victims than he was previously, for having worked on the sordid Weinstein case.
Too bad they will miss out on his experience, which sounds to be profound. The fact that young people are very judgmental does not make them wise. Their indignity will wear out one day, but will their ignorance?
35
@Ftraylor why are the mutually exclusive? What about the practice of law precludes somebody from being able to help an undergraduate student who is a victim of sexual violence?
Imagine in this happened in the medical school. Harvey Weinstein was diagnosed with cancer, and an oncologist who also happened to be a dean agreed to provide treatment. Would you say that the oncologist was unqualified to be a dean because he was involved in providing medical care to Harvey Weinstein?
I'm a defense attorney. Understand that for lawyers, our duty to provide representation to any criminal defendant, no matter how reviled, is every bit as paramount as a medical doctor's duty to render care to any patient, no matter how reviled. Just because lawyers and doctors fulfill that duty, however, doesn't mean we become our clients or patients. We don't lose normal human empathy with the victims of our clients or patients. We don't forfeit the right to participate in any other role in society to which we would otherwise be qualified.
If there were some specific allegation that Mr. Sullivan had responded inappropriately to a victim of sexual assault, that would be one thing. But there isn't. All there is is an abstract fear grounded in nothing other than the fact that he upholds his professional obligations. That is simply not enough to assume what you are assuming.
52
@Ftraylor why are the mutually exclusive? What about the practice of law precludes somebody from being able to help an undergraduate student who is a victim of sexual violence?
Imagine in this happened in the medical school. Harvey Weinstein was diagnosed with cancer, and an oncologist who also happened to be a dean agreed to provide treatment. Would you say that the oncologist was unqualified to be a dean because he was involved in providing medical care to Harvey Weinstein?
I'm a defense attorney. Understand that for lawyers, our duty to provide representation to any criminal defendant, no matter how reviled, is every bit as paramount as a medical doctor's duty to render care to any patient, no matter how reviled. Just because lawyers and doctors fulfill that duty, however, doesn't mean that we become our clients or patients. We don't lose normal human empathy with the victims of our clients or patients. We don't forfeit the right to participate in any other role in society to which we would otherwise be qualified.
If there were some specific allegation that Mr. Sullivan had responded inappropriately to a victim of sexual assault, that would be one thing. But there isn't. All there is is an abstract fear grounded in nothing other than the fact that Mr. Sullivan upholds his professional obligations. That is simply not enough to assume what you are assuming.
8
It's not simply that he's a professor who took on an unpopular client to defend in court. In fact, that's not even the crux of the issue here.
It's that he also serves as the head of an undergraduate house, where he lives on site and is expected to set an example and provide guidance.
Is that old fashioned? Very. But that's how Harvard's houses are set up. He receives additional compensation specifically for his role living among undergraduates. There is absolutely no excuse for him taking on one of the most odious cases (both in terms of substance and in terms of media impact) that the country has seen in years. He almost certainly has rape victims living under his roof, literally.
Weinstein deserves a legal defense. Harvard's undergraduates do not deserve Ronald Sullivan.
378
@Anonymous
Is it not honorable to uphold a Constitutional right, esp in the face of the negative criticism that will be generated? Does that not set a good example for students?
57
@Anonymous
Utterly wrong.
He is being betrayed by the institution. All people are guaranteed representation as stated in our laws; even the most odious of offenders. Ever hear of Nuremberg?
Let the students leave if they have a problem and let the adults, if there are any left, run the institution.
48
@Anonymous Still don't get the point here: the fact he defends on court in one case a rapist, as a lawyer, does that mean he cannot sympathize and deal with possible rape victims?
I mean, do people understand what it means to be a lawyer and to advocate? It is not activism, nor does it require empathy or belief at all for your client.
I still think people don't get how a Republic or a Democracy works at all.
48
You write as if Sullivan is merely fulfilling a legal function when in fact he agreed to defend his client with zeal against rape charges, in this case one among eighty such complaints on two continents against Weinstein. It was very poor judgment so long as he managed a dorm where students live and study and sleep. I spent nearly three decades in academia and can assure you that while nobody would urge dismissal he would be removed as dorm manager. Faculty rights not withstanding, Sullivan’s decision was arrogant and thoughtless regarding the students who depend on him.
452
@Naked In A Barrel--So I suppose the Canon of Ethics which require a lawyer to represent a client zealously needs to be abolished.
A lawyer represents his client-No wonder Trump tramples over the Constitution
89
@Naked In A Barrel
So any defense lawyer who represents an accused criminal should be ostracized from public life? Why is it Mr. Sullivan's problem if the snowflake students can't handle it when a lawyer does his job?
153
@Naked In A Barrel
Hi profile accused rapists need legal representation, right? If he is defending such a person, isn't he obligated to do it with all his energy (i.e. zeal)?
It sounds like you equate defending an accused criminal as unethical or immoral.
103
As an old Harvard alum, I applaud this move from my the school and its current students. A Dean should be upheld to certain standards of character and conduct that allow everyone on campus to feel welcome and valued. Defending Weinstein might be an appropriate occupation for an attorney but not for a Dean. Weinstein is misogyny personified and no Harvard Dean should be in the business of defending him.
320
@Ange Do the accused - in particular the reviled accused - have a right to legal representation? Is that right paramount in a system based on the rule of law? Does the choice by a professional lawyer to represent such an accused imply personal support for the accused or his/her alleged actions? These are simple questions, whose answers also satisfy all other related questions.
77
@ biomuse and every other person making the argument that every accused is entitled to representation:
Yes, every accused person has a right to a vigorous defense. However, with narrow exceptions related to the defense of indigents and the continuation of certain representations, no one has a right to be represented by a particular lawyer. Every lawyer — again w/narrow exceptions — has the right to choose not to represent any particular client. I don’t know what motivated the Dean to take on this representation. Nevertheless, his decision to proceed reflected a gross misunderstanding of the cultural climate and the emotional well being of, especially, the young women under his care at Winthrop House. He should have more carefully considered the ramifications of taking on this particular client.
Signed by a woman surviving w/PTSD who also earned degrees from both Harvard College (Mather House) and Harvard Law School, and practiced law in a Big Firm - Legally Blonde, one might say.
71
@ST I respect both your opinion and your achievements. Nevertheless, what these (at least, my own) arguments are rooted in is the unescapable fact that this:
"the cultural climate and the emotional well being of.."
is an extralegal variable whose content is flexible, which content can and will change over time without regard to any unchanging structure of the law.
Do you believe that Prof. Sullivan is expressing support for the alleged vicious and repulsive behavior of the accused by representing him? If so, how do you square that belief with the universal right to representation, which is a principle that, if not upheld in difficult and uncomfortable circumstances, which this definitely is, is thereby weakened?
97
Zealous guardian of Harvey Weinstein or zealous dean and guardian of female Harvard students? What's it to be? Can Sullivan be both? Common sense says one of those goals is at risk if you wear both titles. Randall Kennedy is trying to portray Sullivan as victim. That simply is not the case. Mr. Sullivan should have made better choices.
315
@wilt
There is absolutely no reason why he cannot perform both jobs. Law students should certainly be able to draw the distinction between what a criminal defense lawyer does versus what a "faculty dean" does. There does not, from my perspective, appear to be any conflict of interest.
32
@wilt Everyone is entitled to legal counsel, even those credibly accused of sexual harassment. Accused murders have defense counsel. Accused rapists have defense counsel. It is a part of our legal system that defendants are innocent until proven guilty. That principle is one that should be basic to all Americans.
This is not to say that Harvey Weinstein's behavior is acceptable in any way, simply that a lawyer who represents him is upholding protection granted by the Constitution.
18
@wilt
You, and so many others, just don’t understand the U.S. judicial system. Why have a trial if Weinstein has already been found guilty? (And where was he found guilty?) Why don’t we just proceed with sentencing. A lawyer’s job is simply to defend the accused, whom the U.S. judicial system presumes to be innocent. (Otherwise, why have a trial?)
22
This is such a silly discussion. Of course a defendant is entitled to a lawyer. And of course a lawyer is free to choose his clients (unless ordered to do so by a court). But, come on, look at the defendant here. He is not some poor helpless sap. He has allegedly used his millions to intimidate and silence his victims, to hire Israeli thugs, to pay off victims. We in the real world know why this Harvard lawyer is defending this man: it is not for some high moral principle, it is just for the money. Please, stop with the moralizing on how lawyers are so principled. This guy just wants the big bucks.
199
He needs money so he can buy a house and move out of that student dormitory. At his age? Seriously.
16
@Ernesto Even if we're to assume he's in it for the money, does it matter? The reality is lawyers can represent whomever they wish and it's not the students place to make administrative decisions about faculty based on their moral principles. It leads to a poor academic environment, where faculty and students alike suddenly need to be vigilant about where they stand on issues, lest they face repercussions. And when this atmosphere prevails, it creates a place where self censorship is the norm and ideologies are pandered, not free thought. This stymies intellectual exploration and expression, notwithstanding that the students will be grossly unprepared when they get out into the world and realize their opinion isn't what matters.
So please tell me, why do we care if Mr. Sullivan is in this for money or not? The implications this decision has on our universities and society are far more troubling.
61
@Joshua
Mr. Sullivan can choose to defend whomever he pleases, but the student body at Harvard is equally exercise their choice not to be managed by such an unprincipled person, who is merely after fame or money, at the expense of the sensitivities of the students. And the reputation of the University he belongs to.
21
Every defendant should have good representation but our judicial system is all about who has the better lawyer. Weinstein is filthy rich so he gets the better lawyer. It's not about the truth, and Sullivan will re-traumatize his victims' if it will get him off.
Although it wasn't a criminal case, Sullivan ignored the truth when he represented Michael Brown's mother. Obama's DOJ, did an exhaustive investigation, using their world-class crime scene recreators and found that Brown caused his own death. He attacked a police officer, tried to take his gun away from him, and was fatally wounded during the struggle. Sullivan made the choice to smear the victim, for which he was entitled to a lot of the money Brown's mother might win or negotiate.
Finally, I understand why some female students are uncomfortable that their dean, who's acting in loco parentis, is defending a notorious rapist. Sullivan can and does say no when he's asked to join a case. In this instance, he should have known that representing Weinstein was incompatible with his job as dean.
Only the judge and the jury must assume the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The rest of us are free to use our common sense to look at Weinstein's partial confession and the reports of the fifty or so women who credibly accused him of sexual assault. They have a right to feel safe in their home. If Sullivan had been a good dean, he would have realized that and turned down Weinstein's blood money.
49
Would Harvey Weinstein permit anyone to represent him ethically? He remains a wealthy and powerful man.
I suspect that Harvey Weinstein would not permit an ethical presentation of his case. Character assassination of those who have spoken out against him along with financial attacks appears to be very throughly documented (and a court of law is an exceedingly poor method of determing objective truth).
This makes the idea that representing Harvey Winestein is very unlikely to be possible without either being corrupt or becoming corrupt. Harvey can afford to pay for the very most expensive defense money can buy--and that representation will trade their massive fees (and a chance to appeal to other very wealthy people for additional business) for their reputations.
4
Representing the object of public hatred is in the finest traditions of the legal profession. John Adams (successfully) defended the British soldiers who were charged with murder for their actions at the “Boston Massacre”. It is appalling that law students, of all people, would turn against the professor for his representation of Weinstein. As a retired lawyer, I am ashamed of them; if these are supposedly the brightest lawyers of the future, we are indeed in trouble.
89
It's amazing how the likes of Ernesto manage to inject their prejudice against what they call "Israeli thugs" into an unrelated discussion of Harvard College's actions in thowing under the bus a Dean who represented a reviled accused.
11
This is cut and dried. Every citizen has the right to counsel and choose their counsel. There was no issue save in the mind of people who do not believe in the system. I say this as a progressive. That mind set is as dangerous as that of people on the right these students might fear up to and including our current President. Both sides like the system as long as it fits their beliefs when the whole idea is it is supposed to be outside of that. It was a great triumph of that system that as a nation we decided not to simply execute the Nazi leadership but to put them on trial with representation. Left or right ideologues are in the end a threat to the freedom and rights of the rest of us.
34
A lot of high minded posturing going on here. At the end of the day, I wouldn't want a man willing to defend a monster accused of many sex crimes for a lot of money as my leader. If you don't like that then too bad because Harvard agreed.
24
You argument has a big hole. Harvard did not agree when it was the defense of a murderer.
23
Harvard lowers the bar, yet again, leaving us all wondering: What, exactly, is education for?
35
Israeli doctors at Hadassah hospital treat Hamas leaders' children, which means the children at Harvard could stand a bit of growing up.
58
These protesters don't appear to be intellectually ready for university, much less Harvard University.
Time to write the 6th Amendment 100 times on a piece of paper and turn it into Harvard Law School.
51
This is ridiculous. Every American has the right to adequate legal counsel even Harvey Weinstein.
59
Would anyone bat an eye if this were a poor defendant accused of murder or drug trafficking? No? Then why is this different. Just as Hillary Clinton shouldn’t have been denigrated for her work in criminal defense, neither should this professor.
* and I think Weinstein is completely gross and am delighted to see him get his comeuppance.
18
Professor, Weinstein HAS already been convicted. Do these law students think they are going to like their clients? Ha! They very well might because I don’t think it’s about Weinstein. No. “High handed?” Is that the same as uppity?
12
Professor, Weinstein HAS already been convicted. This is just a formality. I don’t think Weinstein is the issue here. “High handed?” Is that the same as uppity?
6
If you support Dean Sullivan's removal, how far down that road are you willing to go?
Say I am a student, and I am made intensely uncomfortable by your contempt for our tradition of due process rights of the accused, and you are my dean or my instructor, do I have right to have you ejected from your deanship or class?
Or, let's say, a male student has been falsely accused of rape and you have publicly declared that, if a woman accuses a man of rape, we should "believe the woman." May the student get you removed?
I learn that you voted for Trump -- you're out? You wrote an op-ed in the NYT supporting Kavanagh's nomination -- no deanship in your future? Word leaks out that you are opposed to abortion, and a group of women from Winthrop House lobbies Rakesh Khurana to have you removed? What result? You defend students' rights to wear offensive Halloween costumes? Un-deaned?
28
Any defense of Harvey Weinstein will be—by definition—predicated on convincing a jury to doubt the accounts of survivors. That is vital work. The accusers' testimony should—must—stand up to scrutiny. And yes, everyone is entitled to a defense.
However, it seems rather obvious to me that someone engaged in that work—tearing down the accounts of survivors so publicly—is an awful candidate for Title IX reporter for an entire house. The students of Winthrop House deserve someone they can trust to treat their own accounts of assault with urgency and empathy.
24
“One would hope, in short, that Harvard would seek to educate its students and not simply defer to vague apprehensions or pander to the imperatives of misguided rage”. How unbelievably arrogant and out of touch of this author to categorize self-empowered students this way. Seems to me that Harvard is doing just fine educating their students.
16
Sullivan demonstrated extremely poor judgment in taking this particular client--especially in light of the concerns regarding mysogyny and bullying raised by the very students at Winthrop. This is why Harvard was correct in removing him from this important role. Should Weinstein be represented by expert legal counsel? I suppose so... but not by a college dorm's leader. Sullivan was rightly removed, not because he broke college rules, but because he should have had the common sense to see that this defendant would be better served by someone else. For that lack of insight alone, he has demonstrated himself unfit to lead at Harvard. --Paul Pottinger, Dunster House '90.
29
How does someone who’s job is to destroy the credibility of Harvey Weinstein’s rape and sexual abuse accusers credibly serve the role of counselor to the victims of rape, sexual assault and abuse who are residents of Winthrop House. Why would any victim trust him? I have no quarrel with his representing Weinstein for a humongous fee, that is his choice and his prerogative. But the two roles are irreconcilable and Sullivan must have recognized that conflict when he accepted Weinstein’s representation. You can’t be on both the side of trying your best to destroy the credibility of Weinstein’s victims and of counseling and comforting the rape and abuse victims who live in Winthrop House. No victim would trust you. Nor should they.
32
I’ll dumb this down for people who seem to think that providing legal defense counsel IN ANY WAY should be inferred as a judgment on the character or personal views of the defense attorney: YOU CANNOT MAKE THE INFERENCE.
Lawyers don’t think this way. They think about how cases can be won or lost based on precedent and evidence. I am saddened by Harvard’s actions, there is no defense and no justification.
Liberal student bodies around this country continue to make fools of themselves and in the process constrain the two party battle that the rest of us are waging against the WH. I have little hope in this negative trend subsiding anytime soon.
38
Should a lawyer be considered an appropriate guardian figure to a multitude of young people in their college dorm home, while the lawyer is also the legal representative for a powerful alleged prolific sexual abuser of young people?
This particular alleged abuser's case spurred the MeToo movement which has changed our social culture, and for guys it can seem like a mob is out to get you.
3
The level of tenured entitlement evidenced by Prof. Kennedy's opinion is telling. In the real world of law, rather than the cloisters of academia, firm lawyers are regularly required to turn down engagements. If an attorney chooses to go ahead and accept a matter despite the foreseeable objections of his long-standing clients, and is terminated by those other clients, that's life. But somehow if the lawyer is an academic rather than at a firm, he should be protected? Ronald Sullivan had prior commitments to the students of Harvard and the residents of Winthrop House. His decision to represent Mr. Weinstein, despite his standing commitments, had clearly foreseeable results. To whine about them in this forum smacks of gross arrogance.
40
How does this man have time to be a highly paid lawyer in a high profile national case, teach in Harvard Law School, and be a house counselor?
23
Those who object to anyone getting legal counsel should not be lawyers.
20
I still ask is Harvard afraid of that British Sri Lankan activist student who targeted Ronald Sullivan.. USA laws are about due process "fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement" 52 Professors at the law school signed a letter supporting the Dean and Harvard puts her opinions first.?
9
I love it. Our country is holding on to all our founding fathers ideals. See what happens when you give everyone on both sides a trophy in little league. Sorry, but obsession with kids felling good about themselves and self esteem as the top priority has created some real issues in this generations principled thinking. It Harvard's job to hold the line. Not good.
20
Every person is entitled to a defense. Weinstein, as despicable as his actions have been, is entitled to request whomever he wants to defend him. They could have said no. However much Mr. Sullivan's agreement to represent Mr. Weinstein may seem to the students, and apparently to Harvard, removing him as a faculty dean is inappropriate. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of wrongdoing. What there does seem to be, at all levels of society lately, is an unprincipled refusal to accept that those we dislike, or even despise, are entitled to due process, civil rights, and the presumption of innocence.
I don't like what Weinstein is alleged to have done. But I dislike even more the idea that it's a threat to Harvard or any other institution or law practice, for him to ask a dean, or a partner to represent him. Would they have done the same if he was representing someone who was up for the death penalty for a heinous crime? This action is a direct threat to people on both sides of the issue. If they want to discipline the Sullivans this is not the way to do it.
5/15/2019 10:44pm
14
While I think the "trauma-inducing," safe space PC reasoning of the Harvard students is utter nonsense, I don't think Harvard is off-base in removing Sullivan from his residential college deanship. Accepting the Weinstein representation was just extremely poor judgment by Sullivan -- and it's resulted in a firestorm of criticism that Harvard doesn't need or want. Sullivan didn't take the representation because of some social justice cause or a heartfelt belief that every criminal defendant deserves zealous representation -- after all, he's not representing Weinstein pro bono. He took the representation because Weinstein is paying him lots of money (and presumably because he'll get lots of media coverage and notoriety out of it). This is not a case of Thurgood Marshall or Charles Hamilton Houston defending civil rights protesters, and it's disingenuous of Professor Kennedy to imply some sort of equivalence. Sullivan just put his own greed and personal interests above the interests of Harvard. It's perfectly reasonable for Harvard to remove him from his deanship position for that display of poor judgment.
21
@Bob you seem to have an insider’s knowledge of Prof. Sullivan’s intentions in taking this case. Would you mind sharing with us the evidence for your assertions here?
10
"As a faculty dean, Mr. Sullivan is responsible for creating a safe, fun, supportive environment in which students can pursue their collegiate ambitions. Winthrop House is meant to be a home away from home; faculty deans are in loco parentis. Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Robinson are expected to attend to the students as counselors, cheerleaders, impresarios and guardians."
Are these students adults? Should they be treated like adults? I guess not. Faculty Dean? Seems more like house baby sitter.
Perhaps Harvard has a high academic level, but it seems to treat some its professors not like professors but like "hired help". The Faculty should walk out over this. But they will not.
9
There are public defenders across America asked to cover dozens of cases for the indigent. I have great respect for those lawyers who take on the challenging task of pulling together a reasonable defense for the poor, some of whom will be sent off to prison or worse not as a result of a crime but rather due to the lack of due process.
The rich and powerful are another case. They often march into court with an army of lawyers, paid witnesses and jury consultants all well paid to get the best result — not a just result but rather the best result. The lawyers help corrupt the system seeking an unjust outcome. The argument that everyone needs a lawyer has been stretched beyond reasonable bounds.
The youngsters at Harvard know what their elders do not want to see. Our system is not giving a fair process to all and the well paid defense lawyer makes the problem worse not better.
14
To the unaffiliated outsider it sounds as if Mr. Sullivan and his spouse failed (or didn't take) Harvard's course in babysitting 101. "Modern" students expect to be babied (safe zones, etc.) for all that huge cost of tuition and other expenses, especially when they feel they are the world's best and brightest.
16
Perhaps this is not a good analogy. What if a trauma surgeon serves the same position at Winthrop House and mentors medical students, interns, and residents at Mass General. What if a terrorist who has just killed and maimed dozens in a bombing is brought to the emergency department, bleeding profusely from life threatening wounds inflicted by SWAT defending Boston's innocent citizens. Isn't it the physicians duty to save the life of the terrorist according to the highest ethical standards of his profession by every reasonable means, however repugnant are the patient's political views or heinous are his actions?
10
Even us non-lawyers know (and don't need to be lectured to) that the defendant has the absolute constitutional right to a lawyer. Good thing, too, in hopes that no innocent person will go to jail.
However, Harvey Weinstein can hire an armada of attorneys if he wants to, so I do not see where Mr. Sullivan saw the urgency or need to represent Mr. Weinstein.
Moreover, when high paid lawyers, who know that their client is guilty of nefarious criminal behavior, declare (oh so nobly) that they they are defending the 'process,' not the person, it just sounds morally hollow.
Their rationale appears as having conveniently malleable and pliable ethics. Lawyerese justification, for putting their compromised conscience and integrity aside, which is very difficult to respect or admire.
Then, when we learn of the fat paychecks these lawyers will get for defending rich, high-profile cases, we realize what 'process,' they are really defending.
It is quite understandable why the residents of Winthrop House would be uncomfortable with Mr. Sullivan's choice of working for Harvey Weinstein to fight the sexual assault charges from his numerous accusers.
12
@Tuxedo Cat
Excellent points. Furthermore, many people appear unfamiliar with the process of representing a client. It's not a cold, detached exercise in logic. As Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote, "[T]he law has not been logic: it has been experience."
You immerse yourself in the details of the case, attempting to internalize them as best you can. You turn them inside and out in an attempt to see how they can best be deployed in the client's defense. You take on the client's point of view. In referring to the client and the team, you say "We." You spend all your time attempting to figure out how to weaken the other side's case, get evidence thrown out and discredit witnesses, in this case, young women. You may wake up in the middle of the night with ideas. It's not something you can simply turn off if you are a dedicated attorney.
All of that is normal. Does it make you a bad person? No, but you are for a time intensely identifying with a bad person, serving his best interests in every legal way possible (and for some lawyers, illegal ways).
What isn't normal is also occupying the role of a supervisor for undergraduates who are made intensely uncomfortable by your work, and this is not work that you were required to take. When they ask you about it your response certainly shouldn't be defensive. And what about students who themselves are victims of sexual assault? Why would they think you could distinguish between your roles?
17
@Harvard Grad: I guess it would be even scarier if he was defending a murderer, right? (And yes, even a known murderer gets a defense, and not just for his or her sake, for all our sake. To make sure the forces of law and order don't start getting used to taking shortcuts, concealing evidence, lying on the witness stand and so on. As we all know they absolutely do, pretty frequently when they can get away with it.) Your claim that a defense lawyer is tainted by the nature of defending people accused of crimes makes a lot less sense than many people seem to think. But apparently it's pretty common.
7
@John Bergstrom
You and others are missing the point. These aren't roles that can be placed in watertight compartments and the people affected are 19-22 in age and not lawyers. If I were a person who had been exposed to extreme street violence I might find it traumatic to have to go home every night to a space where the person in charge was enthusiastically representing a heinous murderer. It might upset me further that he wasn't representing the defendant out of professional obligation.
I didn't say a defense lawyer was permanently tainted by defending bad people, but the lawyer does live with the case for the purpose of achieving the best result for the client. It can include some unsavory, if not illegal activity, especially if you are not the beneficiary of it.
Nor did I challenge the fundamental right to vigorous representation by counsel. The point is, vigorous representation by whom?
10
I don't think it's fair to equate religious believes to an inferred stand on sexual harassment. On a scale of sensitivity the two don't even equate. A student who feels his or her religious freedom is not respected likely feels more emboldened to publicly expose the situation. In the case of sexual harassment, odds are already lower to have that initial conversation to acknowledge the occurrence, let alone to repeat it in the event it is not respected, or cascades up as should. Which is to say that the faith in the deal is a more sacred role than a spiritual or religious advisor.
3
I am certain that there are other attorneys that either graduated from Harvard or taught at Harvard that represented either people or organizations that would be reviled by many people. Will these same students who demanded Professor Sullivan’s dismissal also demand some type of punishment for these other attorneys associated with Harvard? Or will these students be selective in determining who is “trauma-inducing” to them? And will Harvard University itself take some action against these same attorneys? It would certainly be a terrible situation if these students or the University permitted double-standards to flourish.
8
@Howard Herman: Presumably they object to Weinstein having any defense lawyers at all, or maybe a really bad one, so they can enjoy imagining how badly things will go for him. This is one version of karma: bad actions like Weinstein's spread badness all around, including into the minds of supposedly decent people who start to get a kick out of hating him.
3
"One would hope, in short, that Harvard would seek to educate its students and not simply defer to vague apprehensions or pander to the imperatives of misguided rage." -and let's not forget, with receipts in hand.
Not only are these children-in-grown-up-clothes fragile little flowers searching for safety amid this lifestyle of luxury for Pete's sakes, they are also a generation that has swallowed whole branding, marketing and the culture of consumerism in which they, the customers, are always right. So why should higher education be any different? And why should the business monolith that is Harvard along with its administrators, whose main function is fundraising and building Harvard's portfolio, see the students as something other than customers?
These students are supposed to be the brightest most adept critical thinkers America has to produce. Man, are we in trouble.
19
Universities have long gotten away with any number of arbitrary rules and have given students little, if any say, in how they will be educated. If education were free in this country that old way might be okay. Students are consumers. Like it or not. When a generation of them have to move home with their parents and are saddled with student loan debt for decades to the point of not being able to qualify for home loans, tell me how you’d like them to find a path to the adulthood you snarkily speak of. They are fed up and we should listen to them.
2
@GJR
I'm criticizing the obscene costs, not supporting them. When university and grad school are capitalist ventures that lead to crushing debt, that permeates every decision and every reaction. So the students see the administration as managers, kind of in the same way if something is wrong with a customer experience one would expect a manager to intervene. The whole system is perverse and commodifies everything it touches.
6
Did Mr. Sullivan succeed in his job to create a safe, fun, supportive environment in the undergraduate dormitory known as Winthrop House? No.
Police were called to the dining room in a disagreement between a student and faculty member over Sullivan. The faculty member sued the student. That's not a safe, fun, supportive environment.
Sullivan did not manage to find a path to communicate well enough and bridge the divide between himself and the protestors. He could have tried alternative strategies to insisting he was right.
The Title IX office has stepped up and is trying facilitate the housing transfer requests of Winthrop residents who are survivors of rape or sexual assault.
Everyone including the students have a right to protest whatever they want to protest. Everyone else has the right to insist that Sullivan is right and the protestors are wrong. One side had to give a bit somehow to even start to heal the rift. (Sullivan changed his status to an advisor/coach for Weinstein on the same day he withdrew from the Weinstein defense team.) He needed to find another way to peace. He may be legally correct (and LC can be as counterproductive as PC) but he failed in his duty as Faculty Dean to make Winthrop House a home for all its residents. Harvard is correct. Sullivan should leave Winthrop House.
10
Those students scare me. They don't seem to understand that the job of the defense attorney is NOT to clear his or her client of all charges and let them walk free, but to see to it that the client gets a fair trial and that any punishment (if found guilty) fits the crime.
18
@Harold: Exactly. The popular contempt for the concept of a fair trial is pretty scary. Except, of course, it's nothing new, we've been living with it as long as I remember, so it's depressing, but familiar. A reminder, in case anybody forgot, that the highly educated aren't a whole lot more sophisticated or civilized than... anybody else.
7
I thought the sixth amendment of our Constitution provided for the assistance of counsel in all criminal prosecutions - regardless of the ugliness of the charge. And I do not recall the Constitution preventing a really good lawyer from getting paid really well from a defendant if he or she can afford it. I guess I am wrong if all those really smart folks at Harvard Law disagree - especially the many of their students who graduate each year to really large, high paying corporate law firms and defend white collar criminals.
6
I don't care when an institution finally decides to enforce the ethics of representation. Harvard is doing it. They are drawing the line in these troubled ethical times. Let's support it!
5
Really?! Who needs "dorm parents"??
13
@PegLegPetesKid: I think it's part of the Harvard deal. I remember hearing that one of the things about Harvard (and some other schools) is, once you get in, they really work on keeping you on track. You're not going to just drift off and fall apart without anybody noticing. And I guess dorm parents are part of how that works.
2
Why would a man of such prodigious talent go out of his way to represent Harvey Weinstein? As if Weinstein couldn’t already attract an Alan Dershowitz or a Gloria Allred who feed off sensationalism. Was Mr. Sullivan trying to draw attention to himself, or was he offered a fee he couldn’t refuse? Lawyers do it all the time, but in an academic setting Mr. Sullivan should have realized that he should aspire to a higher purpose, and because the kids are watching.
8
I’ll dumb it down and keep it brief: Rape is bad. Rapists are bad. Rape culture is bad. Weinstein is the Hitler of rape. Yes, everyone deserves a fair trial, obviously, duh. That’s not the point here. The point is that representing, supporting, advocating, validating, affiliating with, or promoting a rapist and rape culture (or actions that create the perception of which) is not the message you want sent by someone who’s supposed to be a father-like figure and mentor for young people. Some of them have been sexually assaulted and it makes them feel uncomfortable. In addition, young people need a role model whose moral compass and ethical standards are impeccable and don’t raise any shadows of doubt. How is this not obvious? That’s why he’s getting sacked; and rightfully so.
12
@AF: Well, you shouldn't start by saying "obviously, guh!" and then go on to say, "But on the other hand, this case is different." No, the point is that apparently it's not at all obvious that providing a fair trial is an honorable and valuable part of legal work. People like yourself seem to think it's like the work of the untouchables: yes, unfortunately someone has to do it, maybe, but eewww, keep them away from us...
5
@AF I'll also dumb it down and keep it brief.
Murderers are bad too. Does a lawyer who does death penalty appeals raise doubts as to his or her moral compass and ethical standards? Nazis are also bad. Did the lawyers at the ACLU who defended a Nazi group's First Amendment right to march in a Jewish suburb of Chicago demonstrate a failed moral compass? (I happen to think it was among that organization's finest hour.)
The only thing obvious from your post is that you don't understand the role of lawyers.
11
Heck, that radical John Adams defended the British soldiers after the Tea Party.
9
Hypocritical Harvard once again. Sullivan has the right to defend whomever he chooses, backlash or no backlash. But let's get right to it here for the Dean, the MONEY
4
Please don't lecture us about young people when you have failed to lead them.
3
These are law students? What will they do when they get some snarling judge or prosecutor who takes an adversarial stance to them in the courtroom? Cry and complain to the @metoo to police? They need to find a new profession.
These people have no idea what female attorneys went through in in the sixties, seventies and eighties to establish ourselves. If we were as sensitive as they are we would all be working at Walmart right now as greeters. Or maybe that would be too stressful.
I'm tired of all these crybabies. Everybody should put on their big girl pants and grow up. Things are complicated, life is complicated, not everyone is going to nurture you. Not everyone is going to be your therapist.
10
They're not law students. They are undergraduates
9
@Linda
No, they are not law students. They are undergraduates. Why is it that half the people here are commenting without having acquainted themselves with the facts? Is that really too much to ask?
10
Thank you.
1
What is a "separate double murder" (re Aaron Hernandez)?
What would John Adams think?
6
IDK, the Dersh sold them out already. It's not enough to say, once you've gotten a killer off, "Morally, you're on your own."
How about Harvard itself as a trauma-causing agent in our society? Mr. Sullivan isn't the problem for these students. Being a Harvard student is the problem. Talk about White privilege!!! Harvard reeks of the stuff.
6
John Adams would have been expelled from Harvard for defending the soldiers of the Boston Massacre?
6
Another example of cowardly kowtowing to the fake fragility of the narcissists of the current generation. Like the kangaroo court ouster of Al Franken, this is another reason why it will be a long time before a woman is elected president
10
So you'd be Ok if Mr. Sullivan had been representing the police in the Michael Brown case, instead of the family? Something tells me the faculty and staff would have been howling for 10 times the blood, and that the NyTimes would have been far more reticent in complaining about his defrocking.
1
Par for the course for Harvard. Not so long ago Harvard refused to employ some refuges from a totalitarian state because they were Jews. The names of a few were Einstein, Von Newman, etc. That meant they had to work at some B level college called Princeton. In the end I suspect Sullivan will not have his reputation sullied. I cannot say the same of Harvard.
7
Given Mr. Weinstein's obvious ethnicity and correspondingly Prof. Sullivan's, isn't it clear that the protestors must be white, Christian student racists? So it follows that the Harvard administration currently supports ethnic discrimination and racism. Oh, wait, it's done that before, hasn't it!? Shall we applaud consistency with making America 'great' again?
1
@sterileneutrino
But they're not. One of the students quoted in a Times story had a name that sounded African. She was delighted that Harvard had taken action.
2
Harvard really diminished itself on this one. It's Khurana who should resign. But first he should read up on Harvard alumnus John Adams and his decision to represent the British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre in 1773
8
All proof that Harvard is a mob.
I was on track for Harvard long ago
Very glad I rejected that path.
8
Naked in a barrel is obtuse at best.
What's next? Harvard would fire a medical school professor who treats Harvey Weinstein....
7
As they say in Boston, that's Harvard. I'm not surprised.
4
Harvard Law has covered itself in shame!
5
I encourage you all to read Sullivan’s own words here: https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/a-harvard-law-school-professor-defends-his-decision-to-represent-harvey-weinstein.
Particularly, those in which he mentions the vicarious associations with the alleged misdeeds of his client.
2
that's a really useful interview. thank you.
1
The students (and many commenters here) say that Sullivan, as a dorm dean, went too far in his choice of a client. So I ask, what types of crimes are appropriate for a dorm dean to defend? Sexual assault of men, pedophilia, murder, terrorism, corporate fraud, theft? I don't know. Perhaps the students should tell the Harvard Administration what crimes are OK to defend if you're going to have a side job as a dean. It appears they'd take the advice.
7
Of course Randy K is right. Harvard is now too PC to think it seems. Dont forget John Woo - as in George W Bush's torture apologist, actually not apologist torturer - enjoys his job at Berkeley. I wish they had found a way to kick him out, but I absolutely respect that they havent.
3
Here's a question for the professor. If you were a female undergraduate in Winthrop House, would you go to Sullivan for counsel? By the way, the correct term is "Master" of Winthrop House, which was the title when I was an undergraduate there. "Faculty Dean" is a bit of meaningless verbiage created when the misguided President of Harvard decided that it suggested slavery. Of course, it's an ancient term (from "magister") long in use, still in use at Oxford and Cambridge. When my alma mater goes pompous, nobody can beat her.
2
How would the students with the spray paint like to be charged with common vandalism - then have anyone who stepped forward to defend them face opprobrium and intimidation - for we all agree that anonymously defacing the Halls and Wall of Ivy is such an odious offense?
Will they claim they committed their crime in the name of morality so there is Free Speech involved?
A priceless moment from All In The Family: in which George Jefferson, conversing with Archie Bunker, says "That's the problem with you people." And Bunker interrupts to say "Wait! Whaddya mean 'you people'? YOU people are 'you people'."
See how that applies to those who think they and they alone are right?
Now, I once had the good fortune to spen time with Carroll O'Connor after that series ended. I found him a delightful, attentive, charming gentleman. Should I have boycotted him for portraying a right-wing bigot? I can just hear the Trigger Warning Generation addressing this fine human being: "How very dare you!"
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
5
While I may be yearning to return to a time of reasoned civility that-never-was, it is time to retire the phrase “mau mau’d”.
2
1. Many commenters cast doubt on Professor Sullivan because of the fact that Mr. Weinstein is a wealthy and evil man. And therein lies the problem-we have all been quick to assume this “fact”. But that’s what makes our justice system different from the realist systems governed by Hitler and Stalin. We leave it up to the trial —not ourselves or the media—to determine fact. Yes, I very much believe Mr. Weinstein has done evil deeds. But neither mine or anyone else’s beliefs about that should govern what our society does with him prior to a trial. It’s easy to criticize institutions when everyone from the president of United States on down is doing so, but that does not make it right. Trust me, the alternative is far worse.
2. Perhaps a better example Professor Kennedy could have given than The atheist and the conservative would be to ask if the students would feel the same way about having a dean who is a medical Doctor who treated Mr. Weinstein, or, a priest or rabbi who had taken his confession or counseled him. Anyone who is familiar with the work of the clergy and medical professionals knows they help the most sick amongst us—spiritually and physically. That in no way disqualifies them to help victims which they also frequently and successfully do.
6
We all remember John Adams and his defense of British soldKershaw.
3
There’s definitely a delicious feeling in knowing you are unassailably right, and that those who disagree, even a bit, not only deserve, but have earned, your censure and scorn. One problem though—no one is ever unassailably right. Shame Harvard.
7
(Cont.) 3
The idea that Harvey Weinstein is going to be desperate for superb legal counsel is ludicrous.
Finally, Sullivan's representation of Weinstein may have been just the last straw. There have been serious complaints about him in the past. Even the author acknowledges them in passing. According to the Harvard Crimson, sometime after 2016, 13 resident tutors threatened to quit because of the hostile climate. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/5/10/winthrop-climate/
In my decades' long association of Harvard, I've never heard of any head of a House having a conflict like that.
Sullivan retains his HLS position, is free to return to working for Weinstein or anyone he chooses. He simply was no longer a good fit for his position overseeing undergraduates.
There is no betrayal.
9
The more you cave to these people, the more they will demand. Don’t feed the beast.
6
If there's anything worse than fragile, weak-minded students, it's college administrators too cowardly to stand up to their nonsense. The one here should be considered unfit for the job.
10
Why do so many American families continue to fork over their meager 401Ks and savings to send their children to Harvard, a place, where the mobocracy of the overly sanctimonious victimized ilk lauds its power over a cowering faculty and administration. Like the BDS movement and other misguided anti-American movements, this Ivy League rejection of equal protection under law and the presumption of innocence is Harvard embracing and creating a 'safe place" for the fascist tendencies of it own student body to espouse hate for socially unpopular causes or people. Given the value of a Harvard education is no equated with censorship of unpopular view points and advocacy, the value of a Harvard education is far less than the cost of the tuition. Send you kids to Johns Hopkins or MIT but skip places like Williams and Harvard and their ilk of narrow minded bigotry. The inalienable right to counsel and to face one's accusers and presumption of innocence should not be open to debate. Why would anyone wish to pay tuition to Harvard to finance such feckless leadership. All Harvard cares about is not alienating donors - that is their mission - nothing more- nothing less. They stand for nothing but their own economic self-interest.
4
In our system of jurisprudence a defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty - regardless of what any press coverage might indicate. These students, and Harvard, lost sight of that fundamental tenet of our legal system. That is the real shame in this debacle. Perhaps we should hold Harvard, and the students, to their standard and convict them of gross stupidity and not allow them a chance to defend themselves!
4
This Is Harvard Law school?
Don't all people regardless of the crime deserve council?
What have you just done Harvard?
A grave mistake and shameful decision.
4
@Laura Lakins No, it's not Harvard Law School. It's an undergraduate dormitory he leads and lives in called Winthrop House. Sullivan has been removed from leadership of the dormitory. His position in the Law School is unchanged.
8
Much of the criticism is undoubtedly caused by lawyers like Rudy Giuliani and his despicable representation of Trump. It is one thing to defend a person accused of hideous crime in a court of law. This is not only an attorney’s right, it is part of his duty as an officer of the court. It is quite another to become a mere dissembling mouthpiece in the court of public opinion for a well paying charlatan.
1
I was always proud of Harvard, as my brother went there, and Drew G Faust served there. But now? I’m exceedingly disappointed in Harvard’s position, and in the limited brain power of Winthrop students. Shame on you!
9
It seems that Ronald Sullivan's work on behalf of disadvantaged clients doesn't count for beans in the eyes of this mob ...
As another commenter referenced: " freeing scores of improperly convicted indigent clients; representing the family of the black man murdered by a police officer that spurred the launch of the Black Lives Matter movement ..."
7
Reading through a few comments you can see the old reciting tropes that we already know and moved past but yet you keep saying it and we said ‘NO!’. Start to understand we are rejecting your thoughts and ideology outright as wrong and naively dangerous. We have to step in, you have failed, we are all that’s left and we have no choice but to throw the US Constitution in the trash because of places like Harvard who went post-modern with the law and reality. Step aside old man or you are going to be moved. Starting to understand it yet? We are rejecting all of you as illegitimate and devastatingly wrong about the constitution and the law.
Yet another example of the nonsense now pervading North American campuses (university and corporate). First of all, as Faculty Dean of "400 upperclass undergraduates" (ref: Wikipedia), Ronald Sullivan probably never has to deal with a case of "student rape", let alone anything more than a tiff between students, or a referral to counselling or the doctor due to students overworking or undereating. These are senior students in the most prestigious university in the US. All of this safetyism and anxiety pervading campuses today has no grounds in reality, but instead of quelling these imaginary fears, even Harvard's administration is pandering to them. Clearly everyone needs to read "The Coddling of the American Mind" by Lukianoff and Haidt.
6
@czarnajama
There are rape and sexual assault survivors who live in the dormitory. They are not just seniors they are 18-22 year old sophomores, juniors and seniors. Think about that --18-22 year old rape survivors. Maybe have some sympathy?
6
Next step in de-platforming: only SJWs deserve legal representation. If a Progressive wins the next election, will we have a progressive version of the House Un-American Activities Committee? Maybe it could be called the House Un-Woke Activities Committee. Trigger Alert: the testimonials may be trauma-inducing.
4
John Adams, second President of the US, framer of the US Constitution, fervent patriot, cousin of Samuel Adams, believer in the American revolution, nevertheless defended the British Soldiers accused of murder in the Boston Massacre. It was very unpopular, and nearly ruined his career as a lawyer, but John Adams believed that all men were entitled to a fair trial
Harvard ought emulate John Adams, a former Harvard Graduate - and its most distinctive alumnus
6
I would like to ask these outraged Harvard students two questions:
1) Does defending a criminal make you a criminal?
2) If this professor shouldn't be allowed to defend Mr. Weinstein, then who should, and why?
Huge mistake here on the part of Harvard and the students who brought this on. My suggestion to these kids? Do a little less self-absorbed talking and complaining, and do a little more listening. You just might learn something about how the legal process works in this country, and why.
8
While the focus here in defense of Professor Sullivan appears to be his right to defend an accused individual, or "Mr. Sullivan’s “dedication to the professional tradition of providing representation to people accused to crimes and other misconduct, including those who are most reviled.” " (accused child molesters as well no doubt?), we might shift the onus of focus a bit. Professor Sullivan has a limited amount of time to defend a limited number of people. Surely there must be an endless number of very worthy people who could benefit from his expertise but who do not have Weinstein's financial resources. So the question is, among all the sea of truly worthy potential recipients of Professor Sullivan's talents, why Weinstein? The question is fundamentally a moral one. Or is it, rather, that there is no glory in defending a simple, anonymous human being as opposed to some media rock star?
4
Apparently, these Harvard students don't know what either the rule of law or the proper role of a lawyer in the U.S.A. is all about. They need some education.
9
NO MATTER how heinous a crime is, the accused MUST be given a fair trial and an indispensable part of a fair trial is being represented by a competent lawyer chosen by the accused.
Is it that Rakesh Khurana doesn't know the above - IN SPITE of being the dean of Harvard College?
Does one even have to be a lawyer to know the above?
Perhaps it's time for Rakesh Khurana HIMSELF to step down!
5
@S. Roy
The lawyer doesn't have to be 'chosen by the accused.' Public defenders are allowed.
1
Snowflakes. That some students claimed trauma from Mr. Sullivan's decision to act as an attorney for Weinstein is embarrassing - to Harvard. Seems like the admissions process is unable to filter out the snowflakes. Martin Luther King wouldn't have been traumatized if one of his lawyers also represented a Klansman in a criminal proceeding. He might have felt angry or betrayed, but traumatized? Please. He endured death threats and racial slurs. Harvard's snowflakes need to toughen up. And Harvard needs to root out the snowflakes because I count on Harvard (and other institutions of higher learning) as being the places that will produce the future defenders of life, liberty and justice. And those future champions of those great ideals cannot possibly include the snowflakes at Winthrop House.
4
How would the students with the spray paint like to be charged with common vandalism - then have anyone who stepped forward to defend them face opprobrium and intimidation - for we all agree that anonymously defacing the Halls and Wall of Ivy is such an odious offense?
Will they claim they committed their crime in the name of morality so there is Free Speech involved?
A priceless moment from All In The Family: in which George Jefferson, conversing with Archie Bunker, says "That's the problem with you people." And Bunker interrupts to say "Wait! Whaddya mean 'you people'? YOU people are 'you people'."
See how that applies to those who think they and they alone are right?
Now, I once had the good fortune to spend time with Carroll O'Connor after that series ended. I found him a delightful, attentive, charming gentleman. Should I have boycotted him for portraying a right-wing bigot? I can just hear the Trigger Warning Generation addressing this fine human being: "How very dare you!"
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
2
Yes, a private lawyer can decide whether or not to take a case. Yes, it is bad publicity for the university to have an employee defend Weinstein. But to say that a lawyer is dangerous for defending a loathsome client? That they deserve to be fired from teaching law for giving an accused person legal representation? That's insane. Even if it were a serial killer, somebody has to represent them. That is the foundation of our system. And Weinstein, loathsome as he is, is hardly a serial killer.
1
I don’t mind who he represents. What I find more disturbing is that he’s willing to be the typical “gun for hire” lawyer, to any thug really who can pay for his services. To me that’s more troubling, it’s as if he’s and many lawyers like him are wordsmiths who will do anything if one can pay for their services. It sort of shows a level of moral or ethical decadence that to me is disturbing. I perhaps wish he would be consistent with the goons he represents. To do one on this side, then another on the other side, just seems like a joke. Something wrong with that profession where they can just seemingly play, one day with the defendant, then the next day with somebody else who was on the plaintiffs side etc etc.
3
First, Harvard engaged in discriminating against Asians and now there's a witch hunt for a law professor to protect, what, a safe space?
Whatever happened to objectivity?
2
@Lin
Objectivity? His job was to create a safe, fun, supportive home for the undergradutes he lives with in a dormitory called Winthrop House. He couldn't find a way to do that and also be a coach or member of Weinstien's defense effort.
4
The question isn't (in this instance) whether Weinstein should be defended, or whether Mr Sullivan can do so. Of course he can.
The question is whether defending him is compatible with a senior position of trust to act in loco parentis...in particular, in an larger academic environment that is legally obligated, yet all to often fails, to adequately protect young people from predatory sexual behaviors of the sort that Weinstein is (very) credibly accused of. And all too often fails, both accused and accusers.
Sullivan can defend whoever he likes, as zealously as he likes. But walking into a different room generally means you leave the original room you were in.
Lawyer or not, he isn't automatically entitled to have it both ways. By choosing to represent this particular client (no doubt for a substantial fee,) he loses the moral authority needed to be trusted in loco parentis in his former job.
The fact that it is Harvard (trumpet fanfare, followed by sad trombone cue) is entirely incidental. Oh - except that he was probably making a much more than comfortable living as a dean there. Wah wah wah.
12
Well said. Too many of the commenters here are missing these points you highlight. I agree with you. We all make tough choices and Sullivan is no different. You are right, he can’t have it both ways. I’m amazed at the level of hate and vitriol being directed at very bright, self empowered young people. Shouldn’t we want them to use their collective brain power and voices to try and rewrite the broken practices of our culture? Who are any of us to call them “snowflakes” or tell them to sit down and shut up?
6
Extensive reporting in the Harvard Crimson student newspaper regarding deans Sullivan and Robinson (https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/5/10/winthrop-climate/?fbclid=IwAR3ofBk38KuIWx0gZxtFZUHyLijyTTP6FmW0W7eqGLVEcA3dSc0JS2ozd5M) suggests the strong possibility that Ronald Sullivan's representing Harvey Weinstein was the last in a long history of complaints regarding the deans. By making no mention of this history, Professor Kennedy has misinformed readers with this op-ed.
9
British, Canadian an American academia is becoming a joke on the twisted 'freedom of speech' sophism. Marxists are winning very simple battles from decades of cultural war.
1
Do the commentators who support Harvard College's decision to remove Professor Sullivan as Dean of Winthrop House believe that students who live and eat in Winthrop House are really uncomfortable in his presence? Do those students think that a lawyer who defends an alleged rapist is more likely to be a rapist himself? If so, would they also think that a faculty member who handles death penalty appeals is more likely to be a murderer?
4
I don’t think anyone here is arguing Mr Sullivan’s right or decision to defend whomever he wants, and Mr Weinstein’s right to a defense lawyer.
However, Mr Kennedy has not shown clear cut evidence that it is this fact, that lead to the dismissal from Winthrop house position.
There is more to it, and I’m very sure Harvard admin is not going to divulgence more.
He hasn’t been removed from the university’s faculty rooster itself, now has he?
As regards, Mr Sullivan and his wife’s role at the house... that is a legit demand from students.
As a defense lawyer, he will be right in the public eye dissuading our opinion of each witness, making them as less legit, smashing their foils to counter their attack on his client... he has to do that as a good defense lawyer— “unless” Mr Weinstein has changed his tune since then! Last I heard, he was still adamant... “it was all consensual.”
Would I want any man/woman to be my counselor when I know he’s defending a serial sexual predator and cutting down his culpability, methodically and lawfully —- No!
8
I look forward to the day when a school president or dean tells the “harmed” student he or she is welcome to withdraw and move home.
4
Our instituations of higher education have become a cesspool of groups of activist students who are nothing but spoiled brats who nevertheless seem to have the power to bring free speech and tolerance for opposing views to its knees. This is yet another example of the perverted ideal of a "safe and harm free" university as enforced by cadres of activist left wing students running amok under the banner of their "fight against trauma" on campus. This already years long development should worry even people who never had the privilege to attend these great schools.
2
Two words come to mind: John Adams.
2
A person who pretended to believe the Brown family's version of the shooting of Michael Brown would not be my choice of house masters for my child.
Here's the link to the DOJ's report on the shooting:
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf
It's NOT the DOJ's report on Ferguson, Missouri. It's the one that tells the truth, complete with evidence. No mythology about a gentle giant.
Randall Kennedy's op-ed with its put-downs of "merely parroting" and "dredging up" and its notions about what "one would hope" ignores the feelings of the students who had to live under a faculty dean whose behavior to the tutors who worked for him called his judgement into question long before he became an advocate for Weinstein.
Good comments here by students who didn't deserve what Harvard gave them at Winthrop House and who don't deserve the slurs about their "misguided rage."
I hope everyone will read the Crimson article and the comments that follow it. Decide for yourself.
6
The more they complain, the more they acquiesce.
Sounds like the undergrads are taking their guidance from a certain "complaining" Commander in Chief!
1
I am an HLS grad, and agree with Prof. Kennedy. Nothing bad happened to these students when Sullivan accepted this outside work, which he apparently planned to do over the summer break. It had nothing to do with them or with his performance of his duties at Harvard. The level of narcissism among these students is breathtaking, and I am sad but not surprised that Harvard capitulated to their immature, judgmental and illegitimate targeting of a man who sounds like one of the good guys. If Sullivan was capable of handling assault complaints the day before he accepted the Weinstein engagement, then he was capable of doing so the day after, too. Students- Give the man some credit, and brace yourselves. Your apparent inability to tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys, and your chosen spot on the moral high ground, are not likely to serve you well in the future.
7
@SLC
Good guys and bad guys? So simple. Narcissists. Easy to name call and degrade people you don't know. Immature. Yes, they're 18-22 years old living away from home for the first time. Some have survived rape and sexual assault. You're a HLS graduate? Professor Kennedy too?
Objectively, Mr. Sullivan was tasked with making the dormitory called Winthrop House a supportive, fun, and supportive home for the undergraduates he lived among and dined with.
Subjectively, his outside work as an advisor or member of Weinstein's defense team interfered with his ability to fulfill his job duties at Winthrop House.
4
Yes but. Professor Sullivan has a job, probably very well paid. My employer would have a right to be a little peeved if I took on another job which might mean that I would be less than fully devoted to their enterprise. Perhaps he was working for Mr Weinstein pro bono because the poor man was unable to afford decent representation? I might excuse that if it were the case.
2
If students at Harvard College who have been sexually harassed or abused are uncomfortable going to a particular faculty dean because of that person's professional work outside of the university, then perhaps what they really need is something that no faculty dean who is a non-mental health professional can or should be expected to provide.
4
That is incredibly disingenuous and insensitive.
3
Looking after and counseling students is a higher calling that requires more than just adherence to the law or legal ethics. In these celebrity cases the lawyers repeatedly assert in national media reasons why their clients should not be imprisoned - that would include assertions of innocence and attacks on the credibility of accusers. That would conflict with the duty to students- what would he say to them - I had to attack the accusers because my client’s case demanded it - that may be legally ethical but is that the approach you want to represent to your student charges. He should have disqualified himself - and his failure to do so is pure ego.
6
Apparently being righteously left is now more valued than being right or even understanding
the principles of legal representation.
It’s like the Salem witch trials, and ironically not that far from where they occurred.
Harvard has entered an Orwellian twilight zone.
7
Harvard students feel they have the right to protest their professors and their university because college is no longer a four-year educational experience, it's a lifetime of financial imprisonment for anyone whose parents aren't multi-millionaires.
3
The very idea of Harvard University as a bastion of knowledge and truth is eroded by this action. A lawyer's many responsibilities do not include acting as judge and jury. As heinous as his behavior may be, Mr. Weinstein is deserving of a capable and vigorous defense, as we all are. Shame on the students who have displayed their woeful ignorance of democracy and our system of laws but, especially, shame on the administration of Harvard, which has behaved in an immoral manner. I would hope that Professors Sullivan and Robinson soon move to a university that deserves them.
5
While Harvard probably feels thankful that it has been spared the screaming, harassment and intimidation that have shattered the credibility of Evergreen and Yale administrators, the failure to adhere to the basic principles of free speech and due process are nothing if not disconcerting.
When is the time for the students to learn that emotional blackmail & tantrums are not the way to go? Who is going to teach them that other people have a right to their opinions even when they are distasteful to us? Definitely not Harvard.
6
In this incident at Harvard, students and faculty won a battle on their way to losing the war: The war against ignorance.
In the name of an inane ideology that dictates no one should ever take offense or offend anyone else, students and faculty went way past the initially valid aims of political correctness.
Preaching diversity, they fail to see their own incandescent intolerance towards difference. You risk incurring disaster if you say what they might hear as one wrong word or term.
They remind me of extremists in the French revolution who changed the names and the number of months in the year.
So full of themselves were those firebrands they became idea-dumb, exactly as they did in this episode at Harvard.
Devoid of humor and irony, both of which require true intelligence, the generation of safe spaces, trigger words, teddy bears, and digital crowding fails to grasp actual differences between personal affect on the one hand, and larger systems of reference on the other.
Drowned in the tyranny of digital screens all day long, they are unable to free themselves even for lunch, or, more importantly, while driving or crossing the street.
One million "likes" in Facebook mean nothing next to a real smile or a hug.
Infantile umbrage -- shame on the faculty for wimping out and joining the children -- is cruel, craven and stupid. It destroys people and careers.
Ironically, it is also profoundly anti-intellectual.
oz.
5
Numerous comments describe Mr. Sullivan as in loco parentis. We are taking about college sophomores, juniors, and seniors. They are of the age of majority, adults old enough to serve in the military and vote. They live independently. Mr. Sullivan does not tuck his 300 charges into bed at night
So now, in addition to worrying about safe spaces, micro aggressions, and trigger warnings, we most protect these young men and women against a new threat. That their dorm dean provides legal representation to an accused sexual predator though no one has even remotely suggested he personally is insensitive to the rights of women.
The real problem here is the codling and infantilization of our youth. There are some really battles out there to be fought, sexual harassment among them. This is not the way to win that fight.
10
This is what happens when we stop teaching common sense and critical thinking to children.
6
At least someone at Harvard remembers that the staff work for the students.
6
I understand why many of the students disapproved of Sullivan taking on the defense of a character as openly repugnant as Weinstein, but I am appalled that so many took the issue way farther. The most absurd argument of all -- the argument that says far more about them than Sullivan -- was that they no longer felt "safe." They are there to get an education, not to feel "safe" or comfortable at all times, or to bully those they disagree with. My advice to them: GROW UP!
7
This reaction by the liberal left against the professor is becoming all to typical of the shoot first and ask questions later. Personally, I think the defendants are probably guilty of what they have been accused of and more, and I have actually done business with Old Harvey. Nevertheless, under our legal system, which I continue to believe is the best in the world, the determination of guilt is by an adversarial contest between prosecution and defense. In this contest the defendant is entitled to the best legal defense possible,
As far as I am concerned, their admission to Harvard not withstanding, these students are ignorant of our legal system and are worthy of contempt.
4
@Thomas Smith
Maybe you didn't realize Sullivan is dismissed from an undergraduate dormitory because he failed to create safe, supportive, fun home for all of them? Students and everyone can and should protest what they feel harms them. They don't need to know more about the legal system and they already realize that legally correct (LC) does not equal right.
2
Harvard's value is on the decline.
2
Fair or not, there is a part of America that sees incidents like this as examples of illiberal behavior (mislabeled as liberal) by cultural elites that they can only fight by electing Trumpists.
3
What is startling in this situation is the idea that the students at Winthrop House must be comfortable with their Dean's choices even when those choices have no bearing on his ability to lead/mentor/counsel/ or manage the resident's housing. This begs the question...where does this end?
What if the Dean is Pro Life in his personal life? Should he be removed because the majority of the students are Pro Choice? Should a similar action take place at universities in the south or Midwest because a similarly positioned individual was Pro Choice while the student body was Pro Life? What about political beliefs? No conservatives at a liberal school and vice versa? What if the Dean had a pro Palestine belief but the students were Pro Israel? Should only women be deans for women? Should only whites be Deans for whites? Where does the importance of comfort for the students end? Where should students bump into beliefs and ideas that are different from their own?
4
This is not the easy call some here assume. If the position Prof. Sullivan lost was a purely academic one (as I had assumed when I first read the headline) his sacking would be the end product of outrageous hounding from the so-called "woke" generation. Subtitle it "Snowflakes out of control".
However, reading on I find that the position he and his spouse occupied was as glorified "house parents" to dorm residents. Dorm residents who are expected to confide in them and trust their good intentions and wise judgment. A different kettle of fish. Weinstein is certainly entitled to counsel of his choice and a vigorous defense, along with a presumption of innocence.
If Prof. Sullivan lost his professorship in the law faculty, then we would have an outrage and a sickening surrender to "misguided students" as Prof. Kennedy calls them here. But the young people only want new adult mentors/minders where they live. Tempest in a teapot as far as I can see.
8
The students and fellow faculty should be free to speak out and say why they think defending Weinstein is wrong. They should not be allowed to have his attorney fired.
2
Mr. Kennedy's breathless objections to Mr. Sullivan's ouster as dean elides sevearl critical points:
- Sullivan is not being fired! He's still a professor.
- Sullivan is losing his deanship of undergraduate residential college. This is a post that carries some prestige to be sure, but is really extracurricular, and is largely about interacting and supporting those undergrads.
- As such, whether the students like and feel comfortable with him is of critical importance. Those are factors that matter a lot when considering whether he'll be an effective dean.
- He is *choosing* to represent Weinstein, and being paid a lot of money to do so! (I presume.)
- No one objects to the idea that every defendant has a right to a full-throated defense in court. As Matt Yglesias, points out, this is *not* a public defender being assigned an unpopular client. It's his choice about whether to accept this high-profile, high-paying, and highly despised client.
4
Harvard betrays free speech, academic freedom, and right to an attorney, innocent until proven guilty. This is behavior for the Ivy to the south, Brown, and very bad for Harvard.
2
"As a faculty dean, Mr. Sullivan is responsible for creating a safe, fun, supportive environment in which students can pursue their collegiate ambitions. Winthrop House is meant to be a home away from home; faculty deans are in loco parentis. Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Robinson are expected to attend to the students as counselors, cheerleaders, impresarios and guardians."
Being a good law professor, Mr. Kennedy has provided us with some hypotheticals to ponder. Here is another one:
Your babysitter has been falsely accused of rape. Your children are aware that this charge has been conclusively rejected as false but they are now nonetheless terrified of being left alone with the babysitter. So what do you do? Probably, you find yourself a new babysitter.
If Mr. Sullivan wants to continue to take on scary clients, he should probably not also expect to work as a babysitter. It's not about whether he is able to successfully compartmentalize the two activities in his mind. And it's not about whether the children's fears are irrational or not. If after all the explanations and discussion the kids are still scared, he's not going to be an effective babysitter.
5
How many lawyers does Weinstein actually need? He already has a huge team of lawyers. This is not a case where a Harvard lawyer is stepping up to assist the undefended; this is a case where a greedy lawyer cannot resist the money that he will get joining the defense team of an enormously wealthy and privileged man who is trying to buy his innocence after years of getting away with criminal activity because of his power and influence.
3
So let me get this straight:
1. Supposedly 1 out of every 4 female students in the country falls victim to some form of sexual assault while in college. The validity of than number and how it was determined may be debatable, but even if it was 1 out of 20, it would be very high.
2. Winthrop House has approximately 400 students at any given time which would mean that roughly 1,300 separate students (650-M and 650-F) would have passed through its halls over a 10 year period assuming a 4 year stay.
3. Ronald Sullivan and Stephanie Robinson have served for a DECADE as deans of Winthrop House and have apparently done so at or near the highest standards of their position and without any notable dereliction of duty over a 10 YEAR PERIOD.
So theoretically during that time period anywhere from…I don’t know…30 to 160 female Winthop students would have experienced some sort of sexual harassment or assault, and yet it is ONLY Mr. Sullivan’s participation in the Weinstein case that has warranted (a) new-found “fear” and outrage by students and (b) ouster from Dean position by Harvard.
Wow…talk about age, gender and power. Something is truly wrong here and the lunatics have truly taken over the asylum.
The only consolation I see is that future progressive leaders (the students) are clearly learning at Harvard how to successfully execute a ruthless power grab. I'm just not so sure their moral compass is pointing in the right direction.
5
Even the Boston Marathon bomber got a professional defense team of well-respected lawyers. I don't recall anyone saying that they would feel uncomfortable being in the same room as those defense lawyers in the course of their other personal and professional activities.
5
What ever your background - you are not above the crimes of the defended.
To hide behind the argument that the law is neutral and that lawyers have a right to defend/represent any criminal is just
an illusion and propaganda.
The legal system in any nation is all about political struggle,
power and dominance.
The legal system and laws have been used historically to
control some or all aspects of human behaviour and freedoms, which include the freedom of speech, liberty and
the associations of individuals.
The law is not an absolute value - and no is representing a serial sex offender without criticism and consequences.
Harvard is correct on this one.
4
After reading this, and the account in the Crimson regarding the battles between certain tutors, and Prof Sullivan and his wife Stephanie Robinson, I am sure only that, as an outsider, I cannot tell what has gone on. It does sound as if, for a school so respected for producing leaders, no one showed much leadership in resolving the issues which had been percolating. And it sounds as if outrage over the connection with Weinstein became an excuse to ignoring real problems in managing the "home" environment.
It's also rather amusing that at Harvard of all places, the obsolete notion of in loco parentis is invoked.
2
Imagine the professional world these young people will create? They scare me, and I'm a teacher!
5
Everyone deserves to have legal defense and is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Anything less is vigilante justice. No one should understand these principles more than the students of a law school. What would happen to justice if we tried and convicted everyone in the court of public opinion? Lawyers must be allowed to defend, without being vilified. Far from winning, the protesting students should be sent back to class to study how our legal system is supposed to work.
3
I should think that the principled action of choosing to defend a reviled defendant, choosing to uphold due process instead of metoo process, would recommend a person for a position where influencing young folks is part of the job. Upholding justice requires vigorous defense of every single accused person against the awesome power of the state--anything less insults core American values.
As for those students who feel threatened, unsafe, or unwilling to speak with their dean because he chooses this principled stance, their concerns can be taken seriously without being encouraged or validated. Those concerns are unfounded and unhealthy for both the student and the community, and the students with such concerns should be helped and counseled, that they might gain perspective in life and strength to meet life's varied circumstances. I pity the poor students and would wish to help them; to encourage and validate them for their fear and confusion is to do them harm.
The Harvard administrators who made this decision showed weakness and fear, when the situation called for strength and courage. Clear thinking was cast aside for emotional reaction. If there were other reasons to dismiss Mr. Sullivan, let those reasons stand or fall on their own merits. To brand him as unfit for his job because he counsels ANY defendant is cowardice.
6
I don't know about Harvard, but other universities limit the amount of fees faculty get for external consulting activities. Yale: "the University requires its faculty to limit such outside involvement to no more than one day per seven-day week during the academic year, as well as during other periods for which the faculty member is receiving full-time compensation from the University." And University of Chicago: "A member of the Faculty during the Quarters of residence may not engage in consultation, teaching at other universities, regular compensated lecturing, compensated editorial activities, or other substantial outside employment, unless such activity is consistent with the faculty member's obligations to the University, is not inimical to the fullest development of scholarly activities, and meets with the approval of the faculty member's Chairman and Dean.” Yes, law faculty may defend the rights of the accused, but they also are expected to teach and do research. Full time university faculty should not take advantage of their position as university faculty to significantly increase their salary by being doubly employed.
6
Mr. Kennedy, if you pose as the adult in the room and then make this snide remark, " Let’s assume the good faith of such declarations (though some are likely mere parroting)." then it is perfectly reasonable for your readers to not grant you good faith but rather assert that you are merely parroting talking points. One of the basic premises of civil, reasoned discourse is to address the argument, not besmirch the speaker. If we question the unknowable motives of others, we can reasonably expect our motives to be questioned. This particular jibe reveals (or should I say "betrays") an of-putting pomposity on the part of the author.
10
The right of Mr. Weinstein to defense counsel has never been the issue here for the protesting students, or for the administration of Harvard. This is a straw man that Mr. Kennedy willfully insists on presenting. Indeed, as he admits, there were no public protests when Mr. Sullivan participated in the high-profile defense of Aaron Hernandez. I write as a Harvard alumna. A reasonable person can understand how Mr. Sullivan's public representation of a notorious alleged sex offender might have a chilling effect on the atmosphere of a residential community like the Harvard houses, especially for female undergraduates. This would include students' willingness to come forward in cases of harassment and date rape, which are endemic problems. I'm reminded of the "appearance of impropriety" standard for judges and other public officials; the ABA has long recognized its importance. The leader of a residential house, in a similar way, must be perceived to be sympathetic and impartial. Most New York Times readers won't be aware that a lot of academic counseling, instruction, recommendations for professional schools and fellowships, and career direction is the specific responsibility of the leaders of the Harvard houses--they are not just dorms in the usual sense. So the way that the head of house performs his administrative and hiring duties is a big deal and not the trivial, "dredged up," matter that the writer suggests. He should not inflame further inflame a sad situation.
7
For a Harvard law professor, this is poorly reasoned and sloppy work, redolent of the legal profession's irrational and outdated sense of specialness.
Education is big business and law is big business. This isn't about higher education, academic freedom or faculty rights. It's commerce.
Clients/customers--in this case Harvard College and the students of Winthrop House--have every right to expect employees to choose one or the other when the employees' main job and their side hustle come into conflict, particularly if their performance is not up to expectations.
All the bloviating about due process and the right to effective defense is irrelevant and a smoke screen. The Sullivans can take on any private practice clients they want. However, they do not have a reasonable expectation or right to create chaos and conflict on the Harvard campus as a result of that work.
And please, spare us the "slippery slope" jeremiad. Litigate those situations on their own set of facts and applicable law if/when they arise.
7
No. 2 son is in criminal defense and periodically is assigned to represent people I wouldn't want to be in the same city with. But the news that Harvard students might react adversely to someone volunteering to help defend HW should hardly come as a surprise.
3
The climate of outrage and traumatization among certain sectors in this society is unbelievable. And that persons in positions of authority are so willing to cave in to demands made by those outraged and traumatized individuals is even more unbelievable.
It will be interesting to see how those currently outraged and traumatized persons feel when their own dismissal is demanded by the next generation of outraged and traumatized individuals.
8
I'm an academic. To answer the author's question: "Why is serving as defense counsel for Harvey Weinstein inconsistent with serving as a faculty dean?" It is inconsistent because the faculty dean in this case is a residential dean, overseeing the residential experience of young women. This is not a classroom or a lecture hall. It's a college residence. Most likely many of these women have or will experience some form of sexual harassment or assault. The residential dean should be someone they feel comfortable with. No one here is questioning his tenure, his academic freedom or anything else related to his primary faculty tole. This just isn't a faculty to serve in a supplemental student affairs/residence life capacity.
10
The Renaissance ushered in the Age of Reason. The cerebral cortex ruled, the scientific method was proudly followed, discoveries were made. Now the world is ruled by the limbic system. We're beginning to see how that's working out.
4
In 1770, just across the Charles River from Harvard, a young lawyer named John Adams represented, and ultimately got acquitted, eight British soldiers who had been charged with murder in the Boston Massacre. Adams came under a great deal of public criticism among his fellow colonists for his decision to represent the soldiers. But unlike the students protesting at Harvard against Sullivan, Adams understood well the importance of his role. On the third anniversary of the massacre, he wrote:
"The Part I took in Defence of Cptn. Preston and the Soldiers, procured me Anxiety, and Obloquy enough. It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country. Judgment of Death against those Soldiers would have been as foul a Stain upon this Country as the Executions of the Quakers or Witches, anciently. As the Evidence was, the Verdict of the Jury was exactly right.
"This however is no Reason why the Town should not call the Action of that Night a Massacre, nor is it any Argument in favour of the Governor or Minister, who caused them to be sent here. But it is the strongest Proofs of the Danger of Standing Armies."
3
The comments here are suffused with bad reasoning about the scope of the right to counsel, which, not incidentally, the Sixth Amendment guarantees to criminal defendants within the United States, including those tried in state courts.
1. Error #1: Harvey Weinstein has a lot of money, so he can hire top legal talent. He's not a disadvantaged pauper who must rely on the public defender.
2. Error #2: Since Harvey Weinstein can hire top legal talent, he doesn't need Ronald Sullivan to defend him.
These fallacies beg (i.e., overlook) two points:
1. The right to counsel loses most of its force if a defendant is hindered from hiring counsel of his choice. That is especially true when a braying mob is doing the hindering. A just society ensures counsel of one's choice, not counsel of the mob's choice.
2. Harvey Weinstein has a lot of money, but not compared to New York state, whose resources are much greater. This isn't a battle between Mr. Weinstein and a civil plaintiff. It's a criminal trial, in which the plaintiff is the state of New York. (I wish the op-ed had made the nature of the pending trial clear.)
The U.S. and New York Constitutions provide essential barriers between public passions and an individual's fate. The ignorance displayed in many of the comments here suggests that people ought to be required to learn more about these guarantees (perhaps in high school) than they evidently did.
8
@Cyclist
Weinstein is not hindered from hiring the attorney of his choice. Sullivan is free to represent him. His Harvard Law School appointment is unaffected. But Sullivan is not also entitled to serve as Dean, with supervisory powers over students who do not trust him. And according to the Harvard Crimson, there have been complaints about Sullivan since 2016.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/5/10/winthrop-climate/
5
"Why is serving as defense counsel for Harvey Weinstein inconsistent with serving as a faculty dean?"
Because in this country, 'justice' can be bought. I think that is what the students recognize and they don't want their mentor's services to be bought by this particular heinous person. Maybe if Weinstein had not so successfully bought himself a place in society that was outside of legal repercussions for so long, the students would not have protested so vigourously.
I understand that people are entitled to representation. But nobody is entitled to the best representation. I suspect that these students want the world they are about to enter as adults to be a little more just than it is at the moment. So would I.
I have the feeling that those who support Sullivan representing Weinstein with no consequences don't have much of a problem with the idea that wealthy people should be able to buy what they want - including lawyers, and lenincy. It's interesting to notice the comments that condemn the University for taking the side of regular people, (ie students), as opposed to taking the side of the rich and powerful - which many expect such a university to represent.
2
Should a lawyer be judged on his or her commitment to legal principles (e.g. equal representation, however unpopular the client) or a single client/case? Slippery slope, no? Harvard made the wrong call here.
11
You know what-- it was stupid of Harvard to have a non arts-and-sciences professor in this role at all. That's the problem. Harvard undergrads are there for undergraduate education, in the "liberal education" vein. Harvard is there to train its students to be authentic scholars, whatever they may choose to pursue after graduating. Neither law nor medical, nor business school faculty, whatever their qualifications (including teaching duties or stature, or peer-reviewed publications) in their respective fields, are suitable as house masters, where their job is to complement students' classroom faculty in supporting the academic mission of the college, which is about learning, learning, learning.
Professonal school faculty are a different category of "scholar," as their work in the final analysis is focused on vocational training. Undergraduate academics being focused on knowledge, in theory or ideally detactched from politics and economic motive, their house masters should be from the arts-and-sciences faculty. Then you wouldn't have this kind of problem. Even with contoversial faculty like, say, in political science Mansfield, Sen, or Rawls (the famous Harvard profs when I studied the topic, not at Harvard), there is a duty of non-partisanship, but rather neutrality and objectivity as a professor. Partisanship on the other hand is the lawyer's calling. That is what makes him a lawyer first, scholar second, and why JDs, not PhDs teach law school.
6
I’m a Harvard undergrad. The problem with Robinson was not so much that he chose to represent Harvey Weinstein. Most students here respect a defendant’s right to a good attorney (only 137 out of 6000 protested against this). The problem was his overly defensive response to the students’ questioning this choice, his backing of a tutor (one of the adults who lives with us in the houses) who filed assault charges against an undergraduate after a nonviolent encounter, and his overall black-or-white with-me-or-against me attitude that has promoted a toxic house culture for years. Read the Crimson articles about this. He is an amazing law professor and a good person. He happens to be a bad House Dean.
11
The irony here is that the Sixties/Seventies college generation fought to abolish the micro-control of students' lives by their colleges under the guise of protecting students in loco parentis. Now, students seem to be asking the schools to go back to the Fifties and institute a strict regime of in loco parentis.
I see this as one more reason to institute a universal draft: it would take a college generation sheltered in a cocoon, where they are free to expend all their energy worrying about microagressions, and show them there are much greater threats to their future. (As well, it would absolutely negate any legitimate reason to oppose an Equal Rights Amendment.)
You used to have to be intelligent to get into Harvard. Apparently current students are not expected to even understand the basics of the Bill of Rights, let alone our adversarial legal system, though I expect they would want to ensure there are publicly paid public defenders to represent the accused criminal of their choice i.e. anyone they agree with.
Given its huge endowment, one would have thought Harvard in an excellent position to defend the interplay of diverse thoughts and actions, which have been the bedrock of the enlightenment. Apparently, there is now well-ensconced at Harvard a generation of spineless or ignorant apparatchiks serving as the school's administrators.
Of course the real losers are the students, who will be in for a rude shock upon graduation.
10
@Steve Fankuchen
"Now, students seem to be asking the schools to go back to the Fifties and institute a strict regime of in loco parentis."
No, it's more that if there is going to be someone in a supervisory role it should be a person they trust and respect.
5
This is a straight-forward issue: Are the Sullivans able to do both their job as criminal defense lawyers and as housing deans. Some students say that representing Weinstein disqualifies them because they no longer trust them on sexual harassment issues. This may be a naive or uninformed viewpoint and it might possibly have been resolved by providing alternative ways to complain, but there is nothing unusual or invalid about such a claim even by a "cadre" of students. It's also possible this was the "last straw" that highlighted how the Sullivans were busy with other duties. .
It's reasonable for Harvard to make a decision that it feels is in the best interest of its students, but the problem is that the decision maker isn't trusted and this smacks of, for lack of a better term, "political correctness," by which I mean an unthinking reaction to demands that are attractive based on politics. The decision-maker has to show that he-she understands the serious issues involved on both sides of the issue, sought a consensus and alternative resolutions, and explained its decision to everyone.
2
I am sure Harvey Weinstein can find good lawyers. I'm not sure that someone who stands in loco parentis to a bunch of undergraduates needs to be one of them. Eric Segal wrote long ago that "Harvard men think they can do anything, as long as they are sincere."
I quite understand that Mr. Weinstein is entitled to choose to retain any lawyer he can pay for, and that the lawyer should not reject Mr. Weinstein as a client because Mr. Weinstein is accused of many odious things.
That does not deal with the real issue, which is whether the lawyer should undertake such a case when he has a pre-existing duty to act in loco parentis to a large number of undergraduate students, some of whom may be in need to counseling about sexual harassment or worse.
5
@Howard Eddy -- These are students who have attained their legal majority. In fact, there is no such thing as "in loco parentis" where they are concerned.
1
This issue is a Harvard College issue, not a Law School issue. Winthrop House is an undergrad dorm. From my experience, grad programs and schools have little to do with the College. It is another world over there. The governance principle is every tub (School within the University) on its own bottom. While the Dean has defenders from his peers at the Law School, no one at Law School has any input. Maybe the University administration did not weigh into the decision. Whether you agree or disagree, confine your tar and feathers or kudos to the College. The other schools have enough keeping them busy defending Supreme Court nominations and shareholder centric business practices.
3
This is the epitome of what's wrong with American universities. Students are treated as customers who are paying for satisfaction, rather than as students needing an education. The university should have educated them about the ideals and realities of the legal system. They clearly have failed.
16
As an academic psychologist I'm very interested in this situation. Ideally a person should be able to handle a client accused of heinous crimes and also support students. But I have to assume the mental framework, both cognitive and emotional, to defend Mr. Weinstein impacts to some degree the ability to support students in the dorm, especially students who have been abused or harassed. The cognitive priming associated with defending Weinstein could surely bias even if in a subtle manner, a person's perception of women, mean and sexual assault. It's a fascinating empirical question, what say you, Harvard social psychologists?
6
Even Harvey Weinstein deserves legal representation.
Any attorney who has the ability to carry the guilt of being that representative, while still working passionately on the behalf of academia (and students), should not be punished for it.
Just because there are stereotypes about soulless lawyers, doesn’t mean that they don’t actually understand the ramifications of taking the ethical stances that they do.
The law is a surprisingly fragile thing, and it’s not so easy to put it back together after it’s been decimated.
9
So now Harvard Law is no longer governed by the proposition of equal protection under the law, and has folded under the weight of who has the most spray paint? Maybe this should become a subject taught to aspiring young lawyers, Spray Paint 101.
12
@bobdc6
Harvard Law School and law students are not involved. Things might seem different now.
2
You say "Suppose atheist students claimed that they did not feel “safe” confiding in a faculty dean who was an outspoken Christian or if conservative students claimed that they did not feel “safe” confiding in a faculty dean who was a prominent leftist." However, I am not at all sure that in either of those cases, a student would feel safe confiding in the dean about anything having to do with the subject of abortion. It is a tragedy of our times that people who disagree on that subject detest each other more often than not. There are a few other subjects that are starting to have the same kind of impacts such as discussions about the sitting President of the United States or the sitting Prime Minister of Israel. We are rapidly moving towards a society in which people will only feel safe confiding in people who agree with them.
4
This is a good point. That said, I believe it supports professor Kennedy’s larger argument that this sort of behavior and polarization is unacceptable and that caving the way Harvard did will only encourage others to try the same sorts of bullying. Instead we should be teaching students how to deal with life and that they can’t get their way by claiming—truly or falsely— that they are offended because of someone’s profession or beliefs.
6
If we trust the judicial system, no matter how good is the lawyer, the criminals will always get convicted.
Criminals should be convicted despite having the best defense and not because they had subpar lawyers.
1
In the week after 9/11. I asked a well known Washington lawyer whether if asked he would agree to defend Osama bin Laden in a court of law.
Without hesitation he replied "yes, and said he would work hard to see that the defendants rights as an accused were upheld and would give him the strongest defense that the law and the facts could afford.
Harvard and its students need schooling in what it takes to be a good lawyer and instead of protesting against Mr. Sullivan should honor him for upholding the highest principles of his profression
18
@cooterbrown No-one is stopping Prof Sullivan from defending Weinstein. They are saying, and I agree, that he cannot do that and act in loco parentis for HLS at the same time.
3
A bin Laden trial would involve matters of war and peace, undeclared U.S. military involvement, the perils of cold war policies of handing out weapons to foreign Jihadist warriors, stoking Islamic militancy, status of foreign fighters, torture, etc. Indeed, this would be a highlight of any lawyers career. You think that defending Harvey Weinstein against the many accusations of rape and sexual assault is on that level? I think not.
1
Why should he have to act in loco parentis for Harvard students? I left home at 17. I didn't want the world to be my parents. More safe space babies.
1
When the very wealthy, guilty of crimes, can use the top legal advice in the country to get away with their crimes, then that is to be something to be appalled at.
If this law professor wants to do good while doing legal work, he can, and should, give his attention to the many indigent people who ALSO need top advice.
Helping Weinstein or Kraft get off just because they have the bucks to hire the best is simply nothing to get high and mighty about.
2
@Sailor Sam: Defending someone is not about getting them off, as you so crudely put it. The whole point of a defense attorney is to keep the state honest.
We have seen far too many cases of prosecutorial misconduct to take that heavy responsibility lightly.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
1
@Sailor Sam: Defending someone is not about getting them off, as you so crudely put it. The whole point of a defense attorney is to keep the state honest.
We have seen far too many cases of prosecutorial misconduct to take that heavy responsibility lightly.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
1
Harvard had a teachable moment here, and they taught the wrong thing.
17
If a student in Sullivan’s dorm doesn’t feel they can confide in him about a rape, sexual assault, or harassment because Sullivan is providing legal counsel to Weinstein, they can go to the police, family member, friend, campus Women’s Center, trusted faculty member or administrator, or another person for counseling. The are not obligated to turn only to Sullivan.
9
@Carrie - the article also mentions that it is Mr. Sullivan AND his wife serving as dean in the house. They could turn to her - and I wouldn't be at all surprised that if it were a matter of that sort that college-aged women would likely turn to her by default - even when Mr. Sullivan was defending people these students weren't in an uproar about.
3
If the Devil himself was brought before a court of law, he would need a good lawyer. Do not blame the lawyer for being part of this vital process.
6
A house dean at Harvard is not just a faculty adviser who lives in the dorm. Your house is your family and part of your identity as a Harvard student. When you say you went to Harvard, anyone else who went there will say, what house were you in? Your closest friends from college will be from your house. Your strongest college memories will be from your house events.
Just imagine you are watching a Harry Potter movie and suddenly Professor McGonagall is defending Voldemort in court where he is on trial for the murders of Lily and James Potter. Who in the audience would be outraged if all of the the Gryffindor students protested to get her removed as leader of the House? Your house, when you are a student, looms larger than the university itself. It means more than you know. Mr. Sullivan can defend whomever he wants, but he can't be surprised if there are consequences from the students at Winthrop feeling betrayed and demoralized.
8
@Unellie Spark YES, THIS. I believe many readers are being thrown off by the terms "faculty" and "dean". Back when I was an undergrad at Harvard, we called these "House Masters", and they were indeed viewed as and positioned themselves as the guardians of each house, and each house was its only family. This is not a role that is synonymous to being a member of faculty or an academic dean.
The House Masters ("Faculty Deans", whatever you want to call them now) would invite us to their homes for various celebrations and academic events. They would eat with us at every meal, catch up with students and (at least try to) get to know everyone on a first-name basis, invite us to play with their children, host annual events and traditions for the house. For better or sometimes for worse (if you got in trouble), they knew your business and were the closest to parental figures we had.
Also, to everyone who is complaining about Harvard students being immature or ignoring the right to have a defense attorney... these are COLLEGE STUDENTS. These are some of the most formative, formidable, and vulnerable years for many people. Even if you argue that the students are "conflating" Sullivan's ability to defend Weinstein while also being a good dean... well if enough students are perceiving it that way to the extent that they cannot see that, then so be it. At the end of the day, it is them, not us who have to live with him under the same roof.
8
You know what they say...can’t pick your family. Learning how to navigate the world, complete with people with whom one disagrees, is part of the job of growing up. We parents, mowing down every problem our kids might encounter, have produced an entitled young group that thinks they get a wrinkle free existence, simply because they say so. Of all the lessons ignored by this action, refusing to help our kids grow may just be the worst. And paying 70k for this lesson. I object.
Please put down your very jaded quill pen. There's a difference between "mowing down every problem" and acknowledging an opinion that is obviously shared by a group of young adults who have elected to share the same personal, social and academic space. You can't pick your genetics, but you can certainly opine about mentors that you are paying for via scholarship or personal funds.
3
"Why is serving as defense counsel for Harvey Weinstein inconsistent with serving as a faculty dean?"
Because Harvey Weinstein used his money and his power to create a system that robbed countless women of their bodily self-determination and/or their livelihoods.
Because representing Harvey Weinstein means turning oneself into a tool for minimizing the consequences that Weinstein faces, and thereby defending and preserving the system that he created.
Because students in Winthrop House are justified in feeling that a tool for defending such a horrific system cannot be a trusted advocate and defender of young people, especially young women.
No one is saying that Harvey Weinstein is not entitled to representation. But Harvard is justified in determining that defending Weinstein is incompatible with being in a trusted position in loco parentis.
10
Someone at the Trump 2020 campaign should thank Harvard for its gracious support. By being such craven cowards who surrender to angry twitter mobs, they are demonstrating that they, as part of the "elites," are not to be trusted to lead anything. Nor are they to be trusted to teach any future leaders.
There is this cult like behavior that seeks to burn heretics at the stake for violating PC dogmas. It's also reminiscent of the dreaded Red Guard in China's Cultural Revolution. Elites support this junk, then they wonder why people trust people like Trump more than them.
7
1. As a 1991 recession grad, like many of my "liberal education" classmates, I scrounged for any miserable income I could find. This lead, on one rather fateful occasion, to a 4 month stint entering asbestos use data into a database. Naturally, I had no personal stake in the litigation whatsoever, my job being to notate product mentions in depositions into a computer.
A year later, the same temp agency sent me to another assignment, apparently also asbestos-related. When I arrived, the supervisor there said, "Who's [my name here]?... We can't use you."
2. Some years later, as a pro se litigant in my own lawsuit, STILL impoverished, I used a free legal assistance hotline for litigants in my predicament. When I described my case, the director of the service acknowledged the possibility of winning, but cautioned not to over-trust my own convictions about my cause: "When you litigate a case, you convince yourself," he said.
Our legal system assumes that when you attach yourself to a particular side in a case (even the thinnest connection), assume the status of a partisan in a dispute, you lose your objectivity & neutrality; conflicts of interest set in, even long after a prior case ended. As my free legal adviser said: "You convince yourself." Why we have recusal & "conflict of interest" doctrines.
A lawyer paid by Harvey Weinstein to argue in court that "no often means yes," & grotesquely humiliate accusers, as a matter of law forfeits neutrality, objectivity, & credibility.
6
Has he done so yet?
So many people here bringing up morality.
The study of morality is called... ethics.
The study of law is called... jurisprudence.
They are two entirely different things.
To conflate them, even in arguendo, is a fallacy of logic.
When a lawyer is punished because of the public perception of the client, or even so much as intimidated because of public opinion, that is a lynch mob mentality.
Our Constitutional rights exist to protect the unpopular.
Popular people and popular causes need no such protection.
Yes, it is out of fashion for people to honor The Framers. But they got that part 100% right - and this Harvard mob-mentality dishonors the American vision.
How many of the ever-so-pure people who agitated to intimidate Prof. Sullivan clutch their pearls over "inciting the base" done by the current president? Well, you are all now Trump yourselves, for you have sunken to the level of a person you claim to disdain.
What kind of lawyers will these judgemental law students make?
I doubt they will they function well in The Real World.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
9
They are not law students although he is a law professor. They are undergrads, most probably underclass en, if still dorm bound.
3
As a former Winthrop House resident (graduated from the College in 2016), I don't believe Ron and Stephanie should be removed as Deans because of Ron's representation of Weinstein; as many have expressed here, it's an American ideal to vigorously defend the accused.
However, I'd like to refer to this investigation by the Harvard Crimson: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/5/10/winthrop-climate/
The Weinstein issue is being conflated with other longstanding problems in Winthrop House. Specifically, they allegedly leveraged House administrators for personal errands and shut Tutors out of the hiring process when they all vowed to quit amid a questionable firing. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Sullivans as lawyers and as people, but they were too much in the prime of their career to be able to devote time and energy to the students. I don't penalize them for being successful, but they were not a factor in my life there -- unlike the Tutors who did eat in the dining hall and create the culture.
150
@Amna Hashmi -- If what you say is true -- and I don't question it -- then Harvard really should have found some way to make clear to those protesting students that removing Mr. Sullivan from his deanship was totally unrelated to his work as counsel to Mr. Weinstein. By leaving ambiguous the question of why he was removed from the deanship he held, Harvard has effectively endorsed the stigmatizing of lawyers who represent unpopular clients.
45
@Amna Hashmi
Ah, the Crimson article does what neither the NYT nor the Globe managed to do.
Fire the man for sending kids out to do his grocery shopping, fine.
Fire the man for defending Weinstein in court, yikes.
22
@Amna Hashmi
Be you ever so legally minded you are not above the
crimes of the defendant.
3
At root, there are two basic principles of right: will (and affect via desire) and reason/thinking. Our political system allows for reason only as accidental, as it is assumed that people think rationally about how to get what they want. Our legal system aims to bridge the two: each adversarial side uses reasoned argument to win.
Our society has seen a triumph of authoritarianism everywhere, across the spectrum. Reasoned argument may be weakly present, but basically people are driven not by curiosity but desire to win. But one still must win by being or seeming right. Sure that they are, people fight bitterly. They can no more be persuaded than they can persuade. Clearly the implicit idea is recourse to force.
Affects are mobilized as arguments. If you state your opinion in my presence, you make me uncomfortable, and I have a right to be comfortable which equates to believing my beliefs infallible. Otherwise, your speech is "trauma-inducing" for me. Incredible: A Harvard Law student said that! Or if "she" feels uncomfortable with "him," he is threatening her, and she knows this because she "feels that" she is threatened. If people at the nation's best law school belief that defendants are proven wrong by the plaintiff's emotions, we are in trouble.
Our ad hominem culture is a form of this, substituting persons for reasons. "Believe victims": The accused person is guilty because the accusations are of real crimes painful to be subjected to.
4
Reading all of these comments actually changed my opinion! After I read the article I initially disagreed with the firing of Professor Sullivan, as stated by Cousy. Then as a read further comments I saw that it was totally inconsistent with his role as dean of Winthrop and that the students would have a very hard time, if not impossible all together, to trust him with personal issues. The comments written to articles are always enlightening but this is the first time that they opened up an important window of insight for me, and I am grateful! Thank you to the highly intelligent and broad minded readership of The NY Times.
5
That seems totally illogical to me.
I went to Harvard as an undergraduate and am a lawyer. From what I've read, I support the students and Harvard Administration.
Sullivan is a professor at Harvard Law School. That is one position. He and his wife also are co-Faculty Deans of a Harvard House, which is a separate position covered by a separate agreement.
A House is a residential unit that is a self-contained world within the University. Some 98% of undergraduate students live in a House and there are only 12. A House provides living spaces, a dining room, a library and often other amenities. For many students, the House they lived in is at the heart of their college experience. After graduation, you receive news from the House until you die.
It is an honor to be selected a Faculty Dean (until recently, the title was "Master.") The individuals usually are tenured faculty. They set the tone for the House and are in charge of its administration. They are intimidating authority figures who could negatively influence one's future if they had a mind to.
If I were an undergraduate, I'm not sure I would be comfortable with having my House headed by a man who volunteered to work on the defense of a man accused of assaulting numerous young women, women close to my age. I might be more sympathetic if Sullivan were a public defender or counsel assigned by a court because he would have a professional duty. In this case, however,
1 (cont.)
6
"... I'm not sure I would be comfortable with having my House headed by a man ..."
Although Kennedy doesn't make it completely clear, there are TWO house deans, one of whom is a woman:
"In addition to his work as a professor and a lawyer, Mr. Sullivan, with his wife, Stephanie Robinson, has served for a decade as the faculty dean of Winthrop House, ..."
1
@Harvard Grad Female lawyer, Harvard alum here.
"For many students, the House they lived in is at the heart of their college experience. After graduation, you receive news from the House until you die."
Truth.
3
No one says that he should lose his job as tenured professor. But his dorm job means he needs to be respected and liked by students. Otherwise, how can he work with students on a regular basis? When he decided to defend Harvey Weinstein, he lost that respect. He no longer can work with students. That is unfortunately one of the consequences of his decision. He should have resigned without being asked to leave.
3
@ES: Isn't the question, though, whether Harvard thinks he is worthy of respect? Otherwise, how is this different from students (say in some earlier era) finding out that their faculty dean is homosexual, or a communist, and thus feeling that they can't relate to him? What has to come into this is not just the raw response of the students, their liking or not liking the person, but whether that response has some rational basis.
4
@Mark
It's not a "raw response" to be given pause that the person in charge of your home spends part of his day actively working on strategies to discredit young women who say they were sexually assaulted. What if you or a friend is assaulted? Will you feel comfortable speaking to such a person?
Sullivan is neither a public defender nor a lawyer appointed by a court to represent a client without resources. He chose to represent Weinstein, presumably for the money, not for a principle, and part of his attractiveness to the Weinstein team is the imprimatur he brings as a Harvard Law School professor.
The hostile climate was created in part by Sullivan's defensive reaction to undergraduate students who challenged him about his representation of Weinstein, as they had every right to do. There also apparently were older personnel issues in which he was accused of being retaliatory.
Sullivan's Harvard Law School teaching post is unaffected. He is free to represent anyone he chooses. What he is not free to do is serve as a House Dean when he has created an untenable atmosphere.
6
As some Winthrop House students feel uncomfortable having as their House Dean a professional attorney who represents a client in a criminal case, I infer that they would disown their parents if they were attorneys with a similarly unpopular client.
Parents of college students will now have to think carefully about their career decisions -- or risk a Twitter assault launched by their children.
And Heaven help the fossil fuel company employee who has an eco-anxious child in college -- the child might sue his own parents for wrecking the climate. Or simply for adding him to an over-populated world.
8
I can understand that Mr. Weinstein may be regarded as an untouchable of the lowest order. Yet Mr. Weinstein stands accused of acts similar to those our president has freely admitted. I am amazed the similar opprobrium is not routinely directed towards him.
8
And just to add: if there other issues regarding Ronald Sullivan's effectiveness as a faculty dean at Winthrop House (as is suggested in the Crimson article) than those should have been addressed previously. This looks like what it is: caving to student temper tantrums.
13
Lawyers, like academics, do not exist in a vacuum. To argue that Mr. Sullivan is merely representing a defendant who has a right to counsel is to miss the point that Mr. Sullivan also has obligations to the community in which he exists, i.e., Winthrop House and its students.
On that score, he has failed. Every lawyer is of a place and of a community that has nurtured her or him, and to which they in turn have obligations as deep and as ethical as those imposed on them by their profession.
Did Mr. Sullivan, I wonder, seek any input from the students before he took on Harvey Weinstein's case? He easily could have done so, without disclosing the identity of the client or the nature of the case.
Ronald Sullivan has compounded his failure by hiding behind the defense that every accused has a right to counsel. Ditto that he has taken on a terrifically unpopular cause. These are abstractions on which the author, Mr. Kennedy, bases his comments.
As a lawyer and former professor, I find Mr. Kennedy's comments to be appallingly dismissive of the students, who are flesh and blood. It is they who deserve Ronald Sullivan's first attentions and sensitivity. It is they who deserve deans who can help them figure out how best to harmonize professional and personal, self and community.
11
@Peter: Do academics check with their students to make sure their next research topic is all right with them?
Do the composers in the music department seek input from their students on whether to write in a neo-Romantic, minimalist, or atonal style?
7
@Mark,
Thank you for a voice of reason!
And at the rate we are going, what you describe is what will happen next. It's as if we have fallen through a wormhole into an alternative, Maoist-flavored reality.
It's truly getting weird.
2
I often stand before my university students and pause during my lecture to measure the eloquence I should exercise while spilling facts in the classroom. Almost invariably, and understandably, students don't like facts that go against their worldview. But I'm not in the classroom to withhold knowledge, I'm there to present complex data that helps them think critically and creatively.
For instance, data shows that prohibiting abortions does not reduce abortions; instead, prohibiting abortions criminalizes something that further victimizes communities at the lowest socioeconomic level.
This factoid triggers prolife and prochoice students equally... and I wish you could see the faces of those students who grew up in underprivileged neighborhoods.
What can I do? Keep facts to myself? No, sorry, I can't. Unfortunately, my job as an educator continues to weaken under the fallacy of safetyism.
9
I think that Harvard is within its rights to ask whether it wants, for a person who has a quasi-parental role to students, someone who evokes the associations that Sullivan does.
At the same time, Harvard might want to ask, should a parent decline to represent Weinstein, or take on a high-profile case, because it could make them less approachable or effective as a parent?
I think that most kids are able to get their minds round the idea that what their parents do for a living and their relationships to their kids are two different things. If Sullivan has enough greatness of mind to be a helpful counselor and a skilled defense attorney, it might be instructive if Harvard helped its students see that the two are not inconsistent with one another.
The only question I have is whether he left Weinstein's defense because of public opprobrium. If he did, he should be disciplined by the Bar. I've practiced law for 46 years. If Harvard took these actions because Sullivan represented Weinstein, it has shown itself unworthy of the company of this or any other real lawyer. For the school to evidence such extraordinary ignorance of the adversarial process takes my breath away. I would close the law school.
4
This is our world, that I've experienced myself.
At 80, my memory is faulty (no scoop here) so at a small discussion group at the local Unitarian Universalist (note, each congregation chooses to append the word "church" or "Fellowship" but as you will see I hesitated to use the latter which had been this groups choice for half a century.
Usually, a hand full of men but this time joined by a woman, highly educated and knowledgeable. I was trying to bring up AOC, and struggled only getting her last name so said "Ms Cortez" The woman responded, " I find that offensive "
She was serious, and I did remonstrate her comment, but she felt justified, as the word is rather obsolete, which based on nothing else, and the fact of gender discrimination for a long time, she felt fine "putting me in my place"
Harvey Weinstein is a victim, if not of the letter, certainly the spirit, of abrogation of the proscription of ex post facto laws, part of our US constitution. He is not a child predator or a rapist, but guilty of breach of current norms.
Al Frankin's being drummed out of his Senate seat was the beginning. If only he had refused to resign, and demanded the public ethics hearing under oath.
5
The role of a Dean who is close to students is different from the role of a professor. I think students should be able to chose the adults they confide in. Universities would do well to make counselors of many types available to students.
What is wrong is expanding the criticism of this man to justify the school's actions. Quite simply, when people do not want to deal with another on personal matters, all parties should be able to make a blame-free adjustment.
1
Students demanding Sullivan's dismissal (and the administrators who acceded to their demands) should be given non-credit remedial courses in HS civics and constitutional principals If they still fail afterwards, they should be expelled. Harvard may want to reexamine their admission criteria so such egregiously ignorant students are not accepted in the future.
10
Oh, well. How many jobs does this guy need anyway?
3
How many do you need?
2
This was not only a betrayal of Harvard's values, it was, as Mr. Kennedy points out, a teachable moment . . . lost; a gross failure to educate.
6
If a student is uncomfortable with living in Winthrop because of. Mr. Sullivan's choice of clients, it would be fair for that student to request another housing assignment. Why not learn something from Mr. Suillivan about what it is like to defend someone he might find personally odious, what are the legal principles at stake? Instead it's more Maoist tactics and Khurana caving to them. Shades of Yale pushing a professor out of a similar because of the suggestion that people should be able to wear the Halloween customs of their choosing. What about the idea that a students showing respect to their professors, and that would include refraining from acts of vandalism.
10
@Theresa, everything you outlined here is valuable discussion material, and could lead to interesting learning opportunities. And it can all be done in a classroom, with a professor.
1
It is important to defend the reviled, of course, but is it also important that the richest among the reviled are provided with the very best in representation?
I presume that the Dean's place at Harvard and his presence on Weinstein's defense team are both reflections of his perceived skill and ability. I know for a fact that Weinstein has had no trouble hiring lawyers to defend him.
Now I wonder whether, in stating the high minded constitutional principle here, you are ignoring the real problem: that because Harvey is a rich criminal he will likely fare better than the many poor ones your colleague could have chosen to defend instead.
4
In the US, everybody accused of a crime has a right to a defense. Even Manson and Dahmer were defended by lawyers. I think we take the innocent till proven guilty too far when we waste money on trials for people who were caught with the smoking gun at a mass shooting. However, everyone else should get their time to defend themselves in court. The results are not always just, but people have that right. Harvard students and the administration are hypocritical in penalizing a lawyer for the cases he takes. They didn't fire Allen Dershowitz when he jumped on the OJ bandwagon or any other trial with lots of TV time with a shady defense.
6
The comparison to a Dean who is conservative, Christian, Leftist, etc. is unfair to Mr. Sullivan. Those are genuinely held beliefs. Representing Mr. Weinstein in no way indicates that Mr. Sullivan condones the behavior of which Mr. Weinstein is accused. There very well could have been a legal issue Mr. Sullivan was interested in even though Mr. Weinstein’s alleged behavior would make him want to throw up.
4
The bulk of compelling studies suggests that our criminal justice system is systemically and grossly biased based on race, gender and most importantly, wealth. If Weinstein was poor and African-American, he’d already be in jail, railroaded into a plea deal by a DA threatening dire consequences if Weinstein chose to go to trial.
Female victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment have been historically treated horribly by the criminal justice system and all indications are that this long-standing tradition continues largely unabated. Young women attend the university and statistics suggest that many of them have been or will be victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment. For professors, for a Dean to choose to represent Weinstein demonstrates an obliviousness that defies understanding, how can they appear to be so tone-deaf? These women are their students and their priorities seem tragically and nearly indefensibly misplaced.
The choice is thus: The importance to appear to support the American criminal justice system, a system that has failed, thousands of times over, women. Especially an incredibly wealthy White male with a line of credible accusers that stretches around the block. OR Send a united message of support to the young women who attend your university, that the male professors “get it,” and these women’s sense of safety and feeling “listened to” is important to both the author of the article and the Dean himself.
5
This is totally outrageous. How any law student could entertain the thought that someone might not be entitled to adequate legal representation is beyond imagining. I am ashamed for them, and for Harvard.
7
Interesting that the Times also has a story today about Robert Kraft's very expensive team of lawyers managing to have the video evidence against him suppressed.
That sort of privileged defense available only to the Superrich probably has something to do with this student anger.
2
I have a degree from UConn, and a graduate degree from CCNY. This is more proof as to how overrated Harvard and the rest of the "Ivies" are. I own a decent sized business, and had some dealings with 2 separate Harvard trained lawyers. I wouldn't let either one defend me on a parking ticket. Overrated, by a mile. BTW- I'm not a great student, but really good in business.
2
I wish the term Harvard Dean wasn't the one assigned to this role because in my opinion that is exacerbating the inability for people to understand this issue from the students' perspective (and mine), neither of which I consider sanctimonious, disingenuous, or self-serving--as one respondent opined. As noted in the article, "faculty deans are in loco parentis...(and) are expected to attend to the students as counselors, cheerleaders, impresarios and guardians." As others have stated elsewhere, this is a role that encompasses many mentoring facets at once and students who feel their mentor can't provide the support and guidance they need absolutely should say something.
Weinstein has a right to a defense, Sullivan has every right to be a part of that, Sullivan has NO right to be a paid mentor for a house of students who believe he can no longer provide them what they pay for and deserve. Also, as noted elsewhere, if I (a female who has been raped twice and harassed/assaulted more times than I can count) were in that house you can be damn sure I'd be speaking up about who I felt was or wasn't the in loco parentis I needed.
This reminds me of the Kavanaugh hearings, and the far too common view that somehow Kavanaugh was being cheated and mistreated; that the Justice role was his to expect and anyone getting in the way was out to ruin his life. Sullivan made a choice with consequences, consequences that had to do with a non-classroom role that he had no automatic right to.
7
@Martha Borgerding Last I checked, students aren't in charge of who gets hired and fired at a university. And what THEIR PARENTS pay for, and what the students deserve, is an education, not yay or nay on the extra-curricular activities of their educators, provided those activities are legal and judged as ethical by the standards of society.
6
I can imagine a future in which esteemed professors at Harvard, Yale, and other academic institutions leave their posts for positions in colleges or universities that are less ideologically policed.
2
I have to come down on the side of the students and Harvard on this one. Mr. Sullivan made a choice that mortified students in his care and they have a right to make that known and to ask for it to be addressed through his removal as a mentor.
6
@Panthiest - a fraction of the students. Suppose that in your job, a small percentage of those who deal with you decided they didn't like you anymore, because of something unrelated you were doing - and that something is perfectly legitimate, and not part of your job in question. Should you be fired, or should the unhappy ones either change -their- situation or just live with a world that doesn't guarantee everything makes them happy?
3
Students should not feel insecure.
Education travels through insecurity.
Students should quit their education.
Close all universities.
3
Just to clarify: donating millions of dollars to Harvard solely for purposes of ensuring your child's admission? (e.g. Jared Kushner and undoubtedly scores of others) A-OK. Dismissing a longtime dean under the false pretext of being "ineffective" in "improving the climate" at a dormitory where he's voluntarily helped thousands of undergraduates? (despite, as a law professor, having no professional responsibility to do so) Also A-OK.
Heckuva job teaching ethics to our nation's future leaders, Harvard.
5
The other thing I'm surprised Prof. Kennedy hasn't noticed until now, is that white middle-class and upper-class women gender activists have appropriated the moral authority of the civil rights movement.
(This is a point that the late Nathan Glazer made 22 years ago in "We Are All Multiculturalists Now,)
They don't care that Mr. Sullivan is an African American graduate of an HCBU with a strong devotion to human rights. They believe Rose McGowan is somehow in the same league as the Scottsboro Boys -- and the women must be believed!"
5
This is another vivid example of political correctness gone too far, causing a back lash that undermines liberal principles and policies badly needed.
11
While everyone has a right to a defense lawyer, the fact that “Harvey” chose the Harvard University dean is meant to send a message:
1) he’s wealthy enough to afford a “prestigious” defense lawyer from an institution that seems to be up for bids to the highest payer. At a time when meritocracy in Ivy League schools means having money, it sends a terrible public message.
2j accusers and their lawyers should be very afraid and hopeless.
Harvey Weinstein’s crimes are unspeakable, particularly because he knew better. Attack and exploitation of the helpless is what WWII was about. Weinstein’s exploit, like the 2008 exploitation by Wall Street bankers is sickening. Harvard’s students should continue to pressure the dean to recuse himself from the defense team. Let Weinstein suffer the consequences of his crimes.
2
@Ted I'm surprised, as your suggestion "pressure the dean to recuse himself" is a far more dangerous threat to our Constitution vs. simply giving the spoiled children of Winthrop House a new dean who won't offend their activist views. What if ALL the lawyers and law firms were pressured not to defend an unpopular defendant? Then we truly would have what our Founders feared: a defendant without the right to counsel.
2
If Harvard law school was terminating Professor Sullivan from the law school due to his representation of Weinstein I would share Professor Kennedy's outrage. However the faculty dean of an undergraduate dorm needs to have the confidence of the students. The fact Professor Kennedy can't accept on face value that an 18 year old female freshman would feel uncomfortable going to a lawyer who was willing to represent Harvey Weinstein speaks to Kennedy's blind spot. Why should female students living in Wintrhop House have a dean they don't feel comfortable around?
10
@sara
It's not that I lack sympathy for your position. I understand. But comfort is not the supreme virtue or good, though, with trigger warnings, safe spaces and the erasure of names and the removal of statuary to which the vast majority of students were previously oblivious, it increasingly seems to be considered so by both student activists and blinkered administrators. In direct response to your closing question, a young woman should not be spared having to interact with a dean whose decisions, values and attitudes differ meaningfully from her own because life will not afford her such a luxury. College is supposed to be a place and a time when young people engage unfamiliar ideas and perspectives--and that is not meant to be entirely easy or comfortable. My college serves a decidedly conservative or conventional student body, and my students' unease is palpable when I point out the inconsistencies in the Book of Genesis and challenge them to consider the possibility that the Bible might best be read in metaphorical or symbolic terms, to say nothing of iwhen I introduce them to existentialism or nihilism. They don't like having to confront such notions. Good! 😇 They're being educated. They should be challenged to thoughtfully and respectfully engage with ideas and beliefs at odds with their own--as should everyone, including your hypothetical young woman. Failure to do so constitutes a disservice to students and their intellectual and personal maturation. Y'know? 😁
2
@sara - so are you calling for a vote of confidence among all students in that house? That would be much more legitimate than just a knee-jerk response to some students unhappiness (especially as the article notes some of the protest if from people OUTSIDE that house.)
If he wins a vote of confidence, the uncomfortable ones will have learned a bit about life and can transfer to other houses or other residence choices.
1
@b fagan
That's a good idea! Let the people directly affected by the situation voice arguments about it, seek to establish consensus and put the matter to a vote. It would be fair and a fine lesson in participatory democracy. I see only one objection: What precedent is set when student opinion is permitted to dictate educational or administrative decisions? It seems a threat to academic freedom and independence, and a furtherance of the pernicious customer service model, when popular opinion is allowed such influence in the academic workplace and its decisions. Additionally, one of the lessons college should presumably teach is that, despite students' impassioned convictions, there are in fact people of greater accomplishment, experience and practical wisdom to whom they should properly defer. This used to be called humility. But I nonetheless agree that finding a way to involve students in a decision-making process that requires engagement, persuasion and reflection on their part is far preferable to what could fairly be called mob rule.
One would think those accepted to Harvard world have some grasp of the role a defense attorney... Apparently not.
7
Now lots of law school deans & professors will refuse to defend in court accused rapists & killers. Bad precedent.
2
Up here in Canada, Jian Ghomeshi was convicted in the press and social media of various sexually deviant acts including assault.
At trial, his lawyer was able to prove the complainants lied to the police, the prosecutors and on the stand. He was found not guilty after a lengthy trial. So don't be so sure everything you've heard about Weinstein is true.
Of course, instead of advising women not to lie, Canadian feminists pushed for a law that requires the defendant to provide all of their evidence involving the relationship to prosecutors in advance of trial, thereby helping avoid problems of thruthiness by complainants during cross examination.
As a criminal defense attorney, I am often asked "how can you represent so-and-so" and I give the same examples that are included in many of the comments, and in Kennedy's opinion piece, to try to explain the importance to the Founders and to the American experiment of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of effective assistance of counsel. I believe in that whole-heartedly and I respect Sullivan for defending a very unpopular Defendant.
Yet, there are often repercussions -- including personal and professional repercussions -- to standing up for important principles. I would love to be nominated to be a federal judgeship, but the reality is that most federal judges are "former federal prosecutors" and not criminal defense attorneys in part because prosecutors don't have to explain why it is they chose to represent "Terrible Person A" or "Terrible Person B." Standing up for unpopular people can often make you unpopular as well, and that appears to be what has befallen Sullivan. That is a price worth paying because the principle is so important. But, there is no "right" to defend an accused rapist and, at the same time, occupy a sensitive position on a college campus in which you are expected to be a resource for, and provide support (moral, emotional, etc.) to, young people who are victims of sexual violence.
4
@TM, thank you for speaking from experience and understanding. It's good to know someone out there understands (and articulated) that we all get to make choices and we will often have consequences and that is to be expected.
1
I imagine Dr. Kennedy understood his legal representation of Mr. Weinstein would provoke a forceful and sustained negative response. In the interest of comity on campus and beyond he could have – and in my opinion should have - made a different decision.
3
Those of us who are distressed by Donald Trump’s daily trampling of the dignity of his office should be equally alarmed by the self-abasement of our leading universities. The pseudo-populism of the Trump regime is matched by the abdication by elite institutions of their traditional mission and authority. Rather than nudge students out of their comfort zones and encourage them to look beyond the here-and-now of their Facebook feed, faculty and administrators are at pains to protect their delicate sensibilities and reinforce their frail self-esteem. No demand for social justice, however ill-considered, can be resisted for long. The Harvard-Yale rivalry used to be mainly about football and boat races. Now it’s about which of the two institutions can outdo the other in self-parodic atonement for its benighted past. The pillorying of the Christakises at Yale over Halloween costumes has been matched by the expulsion of the Sullivans from Winthrop House. Your turn, Eli.
Recalling my own late adolescence, I’m grateful there were adults around to talk sense to me and keep me from acting on my worst impulses. Nowadays, the adults make themselves scarce except when they need the kids’ advice, and it’s only the adolescent peer group that has the power of restraint and moderation. Anything else is elitist and patriarchal.
6
I wonder how many students protested when Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz defended the double-murderer, OJ Simpson. That's a rhetorical question...I'm sure the answer is none.
6
@Jonathan B
It's different. Dersh was not an undergrad dean like Sullivan
3
the liberal mob, attacks and shames anyone who disagrees with their politics.
shame on them
may civil discourse return to our society
7
@Joe Yoh
The politics that powerful men should not abuse young women?
Also, in fairness, this is what civil discourse is. They are using their voices to argue against something they think is wrong and refusing to support with their dollars a man who would defend it. They are not burning crosses, driving their cars in a crowd, or brandishing firearms to intimidate those who would oppose them.... That's another crowd.
4
Try not to start by calling folks a “liberal mob” if what you are after is civil discourse. You clearly are not reading many of the comments that “mob” of liberals have opinions differing from your characterization.
2
There is nothing liberal about this particular mob. They are the very definition of "illiberal." Classic liberals believe in fundamental freedoms.
1
Why don't we consider what students thought of Mr. Sullivan BEFORE he joined Weinstein's legal team. Did students feel well-supported? Was he a good mentor, a good counselor? Was he responsive to claims of sexual assault? Etc...
If the answers to the above questions are "yes," then 1) it is clear that Mr. Sullivan is in fact an admirable dean with the students' best interest at heart, 2) the students are indicting him simply for representing Weinstein, 3) students are expressing false and misguided outrage, and 4) the students are even more fragile than I would have ever imagined.
8
You set up a question that has at least two answers (though really is more likely to fall somewhere on a spectrum). Then you assume the answer is “yes” with no evidence and imply that this should result in castigating students (you do us “if the answer is ‘yes’” to absolve yourself, but since you don’t explore any other option, your judgement is clear). That’s a very poor argument.
3
@Tad Davies
It's so ironic that you make the assumption that I assume to know what kind of dean Sullivan was prior to Weinstein! That's a "very poor" assumption on your part.
I clearly don't know what kind of dean Sullivan was before Weinstein. Hence the "ifs" If you do, please illuminate. I was just hoping to point out that his performance on the job prior to Weinstein matters.
That said, point taken. I should have also written: "If the answers to the questions are 'no,' then Sullivan shouldn't be dean."
I don't care about the fact that he represented what is by all accounts an odious man; that's part of being a lawyer and shouldn't be held against him per se. But the article notes that he had previously represented one of Weinstein's accusers, Rose McGowan (albeit on what seem to be largely unrelated charges). This seems like a pretty obvious conflict of interest to me, one that would require at a minimum informed consent from both Weinstein and McGowan. A lawyer's duty of loyalty and confidentiality to one client doesn't end with the representation; putting himself in the position of representing another client who has interests so directly opposed to McGowan's seems like asking for trouble.
6
Moral courage is doing what is right even if it is unpopular.
It is not doing what is unpopular because it is wrong and then whining when people condemn you for it.
I can find no principle that Mr. Sullivan is upholding in defending Mr. Weinstein. It appears to me just to be defending the notion that the rich and powerful may escape punishment for abusing young and vulnerable women; in doing so, he is loaning out his and Harvard's credibility to forward that notion (or maybe renting it out by the hour).
Harvard's students have every reason to be enraged.
9
The article starts at the wrong point. If you work for a private university, your employer has the right to determine the scope of your outside work. This is not about freedom of speech, nor is it about the right to counsel. A private university can decide that it wants its employees to avoid certain kinds of outside work.
For example, a University might decide that it doesn't want its professors to become slumlords; or it might decide that it doesn't want the faculty to represent the National Rifle Association. This decision arises from the University's decision on what it wants the University to be known for. Notre Dame might tell its faculty that defending abortion rights is outside the boundaries of members of its law faculty. None of this is about right to counsel. There are plenty of lawyers available to Harvey Wienstein. This is about Weinstein harnessing the reputation of Harvard through its professor. I doubt that Harvard fired Sullivan for asking to represent Weinstein. This is about Harvard telling him that he has to choose.
7
As a Harvard undergrad, I was sexually assaulted in the confines of my dormitory. I was bewildered, embarrassed, and fearful of what to do afterwards, and what the consequences would be if I told any figures of authority on campus. I confided in close friends and family, and I ultimately took their advice to report the incident to my house dean. I knew her to be an incredibly approachable, empathetic female - but even so, I remember being dreadfully nervous and worried that I would regret seeking her support in the matter. Would she believe me?
Would she think I was exaggerating? Would she even want to help? It was difficult for me to find the courage to tell her everything, but she helped me navigate the situation most cautiously and I will always be grateful to her.
That all being said, I have no doubt that if I knew my house dean at the time was willingly defending someone who was the literal face of sexual violence, I would not have even considered reporting the incident - and the perpetrator would have never faced the consequences that he rightfully deserved.
This is not about his role as an academic or attorney. This is about nurturing a home away from home for students, and their right to seek guidance without hesitation from those who have been hired to look out for their best interests.
14
"... if I knew my house dean at the time ..."
Although Kennedy doesn't make it completely clear, there are TWO house deans, one of whom is a woman:
"In addition to his work as a professor and a lawyer, Mr. Sullivan, with his wife, Stephanie Robinson, has served for a decade as the faculty dean of Winthrop House, ..."
1
@Ink Excellent post and point !
2
@Ink, beautifully stated, and I'm sorry that you were assaulted.
2
Hey Randall Kennedy, is this really the first time you noticed that the left-wing culture at universities doesn't respect the Constitution or its traditions?
You wait till now, when a friend and colleague of yours is vilified for giving an unpopular defendant his right to counsel?
What about when the judge in California was hounded out of office for using his discretion on sentencing -- but the "Me Too" people objected to it.
What about the speech codes and shouting down of unpopular speakers on campus?
6
First of all, calling Harvard a left-wing institution is incredibly ignorant and silly.
Secondly, this has nothing to do with left or right, dear, so grow up.
2
I think you could write this opinion piece without trying to draw any comparisons between the respective legal situations of Thurgood Marshall and Harvey Weinstein.
9
I would agree that Mr. Sullivan should not serve the Girl Scouts in any capacity, but they are children, legally minors.
1
Maybe now that Sullivan is going to stay on, he can invite Harvey Weinstein to the dorm for a nice dinner, maybe a sleepover. A special seminar for the students: get to know what it's like to defend a thoroughly reviled person. Just be careful not to leave any potted plants around. Apparently Harvey sometimes treats them the way dogs treat lawns.
1
Why do people expect morality and character from an institution that has repeatedly demonstrated its contempt for both? Whether it was Brent Kavanaugh's lecture termination based on claims by demonstrably dishonest accusers, the endless acceptance of Saudi money for its liberal arts and political science programs, the endowment supporting Professor Gates underwritten by a known Ponzi schemer, the Madoff-complicit Jefferey Piccower-funded research center, and a raft more, the place has less backbone than a cockroach
2
Gee, even Harvard students are still children.
6
As I read this, I was mostly on board with the argument. Then I read this: "Others have simply been willing to be mau-maued." Excuse me. The Mau-Mau were freedom fighters in Kenya. How did the name for their movement become something so derogatory?
5
You obviously are unfamiliar with the practice and term from the late 1960s Black Power movement that has nothing directly to do with the independence rebellion in Kenya. Take the time to at least properly understand the term before opining. It refers to haranguing and baiting, usually with accusations of "privilege" or racism, to get some concession or funds, etc. It is best known from a 1970 article by Tom Wolf, "Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers."
1
"How did the name [mau-mau] for their movement become something so derogatory?"
A dictionary would be a good place to start:
"mau-mau: transitive verb : to intimidate (someone, such as an official) by hostile confrontation or threats" (Merriam-Webster)
"First Known Use of mau-mau: 1970, in the meaning defined at transitive sense"
1
The slippery slope argument is generally considered a logical fallacy and as it is made here it is particularly fallacious. Harvard’s is assertion of the impropriety of this attorney representing this client at this time falls far short of the dire predictions that unpopular defendants will be unable to find willing counsel. There are certainly problems in finding lawyers willing to take cases for reduced fees in impoverished areas, but that is not this problem.
4
Harvard lost a huge and extremely important teaching opportunity, one that is sorely missing through much of our society today and in no small way contributing the growing divisions that are weakening our democracy.
The college should have used this opportunity to teach -- through forums, smaller talking groups, and its actions toward the professor -- its students and the broader public about the critical difference between the role of representing a defendant and supporting what might be a defendant's actions.
Perhaps most importantly, it should have used this opportunity to help students and the community learn how to try to broaden their understanding of people with whom they are uncomfortable, or strongly disagree, through communication and dialogue. That dialogue should not be just about individuals' feelings, but also the bigger picture, including facts, how justice is upheld in our society, and other ideas and their implementation that are essential to democracy and living in communities of diverse beliefs, feelings, and people.
Such dialogue also can help individuals feel less traumatized.
Sadly the ability to teach students how to have constructive, educational discussions and debate, beyond students' personal feelings and experiences, has been sorely lacking in college and high school classrooms and larger arenas for many years now. --JS
6
Sullivan can represent whoever he wants. Harvard can choose who they like to be dean. If Sullivan creates doubt about his ability to counsel students who have been assaulted, then Harvard can remove him. He's in that house to protect the students, not Harvey Weinstein. Sullivan removed himself with the choice he made.
17
Was he told or contracted not to take certain cases by Harvard? It doesn’t seem so. So Harvard just gave in to mob psychology. As a Democrat I’m afraid that many people in our party are oblivious to this and to some people will appear less different from the alternative than we think.
Everyone who is holier than thou about this,I want to ask you what group of people have the most to complain? Don’t say the victims. I mean which ones?
The dean is doing a necessary job. Many people who
succeeded with Weinstein didn’t speak up to protect those who were thrown away. Now they do to get some fame. While I don’t mean to suggest that Jane Fonda, for instance didn’t suffer but she had a very famous father and did he know? Why now? Who not regretting speaking up because of others?
So now if this dean loses the case, that may be a very strong lesson. Think for your selves and spend your energy researching and not knee jerk mob joining. It’s dangerous no matter who is in the mob.
This is not directed at you but the general way people will attack people doing their job and think they have any idea what the internal struggle is. Don’t tell me it’s fame glory and money because that’s never the whole thing.
This issue here is not whether everyone is innocent until proven guilty nor whether everyone deserves counsel. The issue here is whether this person is a good social fit as a dorm advisor.
Sullivan is essentially a dorm advisor. As such, students comfort and trust in him -- his "like-ability," if you will -- are relevant. The author is a colleague and friend of Sullivan, and he makes no claim that he has talked with Winthrop students and he gives no outline of the findings of the "climate" study of Winthrop by Harvard. It's unlikely Harvard withdrew Sullivan's advisor role over this one issue.
Women have known since time immemorial that reputation matters. Men are learning this is in the #MeToo era. No one should be unfairly maligned, but people need to realise that their actions (professional, personal, etc.) have reputational consequences. If you want people to like you, then maybe don't represent Weinstein. Yes, everyone deserves counsel. But if you want to be a "like-able" dorm advisor (as well as a lawyer), then maybe serve as counsel to, for example, low-income criminal defendants.
And let's stop labelling the tiny minority of brave, thoughtful, committed students who publicly speak out as snowflakes. It takes far more courage to speak out than to accept the status quo. And, if you say something valuable, others might listen, as apparently happened here. Very few people publicly engage. Don't we want to encourage young adults to speak out and engage?
13
@ Kay
The word “engage” is a cliche. Used too broadly.
What do you mean by engage—in behaviorally specific words...active verbs, please.
@Kay Day So if the dean does not share all the poor innocent parentless kids opinions- or dares to offer one that they don't agree with- he/she/ze are out. Immaturity, thy name is Harvard student.
I wonder if this situation is less layered than Prof. Kennedy proposes. The Dean's "...decision was 'informed by a number of considerations,'...", presumably touched on by the Crimson exposé. Maybe Sullivan's defense of Weinstein was just the straw that broke the students' backs. We are not informed of any Administrative shortcomings of the Sullivans, even though that would surely be part of the job description. Of course, that wouldn't lend itself to Kennedy's didacticism, so instead he dismisses it simply:
"...No one is perfect; perhaps there is something to these claims."
Let's hope that's not Attorney Sullivan's opening statement in the Weinstein trial.
4
We are a nation built on the premise that every single person accused of a crime is entitled to a vigorous defense. The defense attorney by virtue of this position must rise above public opinion and use all the brain power she/he has to defend the accused regardless of the accusation. The person is innocent until proven guilty. I am appalled that Harvard has taken this stand and the decision makers should be ashamed. Students are just that, students and at Harvard to learn. I am astonished that Harvard would make such an ignorant decision.
8
I've always felt that becoming an attorney is like making a deal with the devil. It's rather apparent in this situation.
Is it Prof. Sullivan's position that he will not defend men like Weinstein unless they pay him? Is he prepared to manipulate the truth, and distort the truth, and capitalize on any technicalities to minimize Weinstein's scandalous acts? Of course, it's his sworn duty.
Why haven't the law students at Harvard woken up to this simple truth?
1
It may be Harvard, but the students are demonstrating ignorance. Shame on them. If Harvard capitulates, Shame on Harvard
7
It is the defendant who is guaranteed a trial by a jury, and through state law and case precedent, "competent" legal representation. One question is whether Mr. Sullivan, as a "dean of a dormitory at Harvard", had an ethical conflict of interest from the beginning and therefore should never have accepted representation of the defendant. Criminal defense attorneys cannot be looking over their shoulders at a college committee, even with a contract waiver from the college. Indeed, Mr. Sullivan's wife could have remained at Winthrop House and useful lessons learned by the students and the college: professionally, husbands and wives are legal individuals, and ethical conflicts of interests disqualify legal representation.
Sounds like Harvard isn't a university any more, but a business-- "the customer is always right" type of place. I never would have dreamed that it would cave based on student opinion. Too bad the faculty that signed the letter can't afford to quit or go on strike. Their action really makes a mockery of what a university should be-- a haven for free speech and action. Because someone is hated, they don't deserve legal counsel?
6
@Blue Guy in Red State
Honestly, I don't understand how it took this incident for you to realize that nearly all Universities are businesses first and schools second.
1
I find it interesting, to say the least, that Prof. Sullivan's myriad good deeds -- running HLS's Criminal Justice Institute; freeing scores of improperly convicted indigent clients; representing the family of the black man murdered by a police officer that spurred the launch of the Black Lives Matter movement -- go wholly unmentioned by students & commenters rushing to judge him for opting to defend Harvey Weinstein, a man crucified in the media but not yet convicted of any crime.
The implicit suggestion that Sullivan in any way "sympathizes with" or "supports" Weinstein's alleged actions is a borderline-farcical insult to both Sullivan specifically and defense attorneys generally. Should the counsel who defended, say, Ted Bundy and Timothy McVeigh be similarly crucified?
Worse still, Prof. Sullivan has served as the faculty dean for the dorm in question for over a decade -- alongside his wife, one might add. Has he done ANYTHING during that time suggestive that he's somehow not "fit" to run a dormitory? Seeing as there's been no press mention of it, the presumption must thus be "no" - much like it is for criminal defendants accused, but not yet convicted of, crimes. Even heinous ones.
Finally, this whole sordid tale merely reinforces the right-wing trope that privileged college kids are "snowflakes" who can't handle dissenting views and are "triggered" by actions that are entirely commonplace in the "real world" (e.g. work as a criminal defendant).
7
I tried to read carefully enough and believe Mr. Sullivan has lost only his position as Dean of Winthrop House. I see this as fair as accepting the role of defending Mr. Weinstein shows that Mr. Sullivan focus on the most important job he has-the nurturing of students at Winthrop House- is not the most important thing on Mr. Sullivan's mind.
Harvard did the "almost right thing" in this matter.
Why did they not simply assign the existing post to Ms. Robinson and let Mr. Sullivan go? This act alone keeps Harvard from demonstrating the right action and the absence of sexism in this matter.
Almost the right thing to do.
1
I was a student at HLS while Alan Dershowitz was active representing criminal defendants. In fact, his first year criminal law class used his memoir about successfully defending Claus von Bulow, certainly a figure reviled by many. No one thought to protest that representation because it was what law professors, especially those of criminal law, did. Other prominent professors represented large corporations in antitrust and constitutional matters. We might have advocated a position contrary to that of those professors, but we would never have sought their ouster.
10
@Brian Sullivan
In fairness, Dershowitz defended von Bulow to vindicate the principle that the family's private investigators could not violating the defendant's civil rights to collect evidence to turn over to the police. (i.e., the police couldn't privatize their violation).
Dershowitz wasn't just doing it because the defendant was rich and famous.
3
As a long-time liberal, civil libertarian, I was appalled at the decision of the Harvard administration. The position of the undergraduates was predictable given the current climate assuming guilt in any case involving sexual harassment. While the Me Too movement was long overdue, we cannot become Jacobins. Weinstein should be tried and judged within the existing legal system, including appropriate legal representation. The Dean involved should be applauded for taking on a brutally unpopular client.
14
Harvard is a business
One of the employees made a poor judgement and the customers didn’t like it
Had to go
Also - when you open your article with “misguided students” I shut off to the defensive babble that follows
You are on the wrong side of history and sound exactly like the out of touch - ivory tower stereotype that you’d be accused of being
if a professor makes money in a way that the students don’t like, then he or she gets sacked
There’s not a principled argument in the world that counters that - sorry!
1
@DMB Harvard isn't a business, it's a non-profit. And if a professor makes money in a way that students don't like", he or she doesn't get sacked. That's why there's this thing called "tenure".
Try a little harder next time, OK?
5
Harvard is a business as evidenced by its huge endowment ( ie excess profits in the form of largesse ) - it may not pay taxes but it is a business with services, customers, revenue, and expenses.
Tenure is a ridiculous concept born of an outmoded era.
Getting fired is part of life and so is getting demoted- and if someone does something stupid as perceived by their customer base, they get sacked or demoted
Sorry.
1
@Jack Daw
A.) It is not just "a non-profit."
B.) Mr. Sullivan did not "get sacked," he is still employed as a professor at Harvard.
2
When I think of the millennia that societies’ shaming, shunning, and approbation was (and still is) more than sufficient to trample women’s basic human rights, I have no problem with this group of women using the same tactic on this man, Weinstein, or the Southern Christian Taliban for that matter. Women have learned from the most effective perpetrators. Turn about is fair play, is it not?
@Quin No it is not.
1
It appears that liberal Harvard University is now reaping what it has sown and the left is attacking the left. The fragile students (referred to by some as "Snowflakes") have been "traumatized" by the fact that one of Harvard's own has agreed to represent Harvey Weinstein. News flash, kids! Everyone is entitled to receive legal representation when they have been charged with a crime. Lawyers can't just represent innocent people, or even just people whom they believe to be innocent. Besides the fact that everyone charged with a crime is entitled to have legal representation, defense lawyers wouldn't have enough work to keep themselves afloat if they only defended the innocent.
6
So many lawyers piling on to this very weak defense of Sullivan’s decision to go after the $$$ and defend Weinstein instead of considering his many other responsibilities as a full time tenured law professor and head of a residential house of undergraduates. I though lawyers needed to be able to read? He wasn’t fired from his job as a law professor. Whether or not any defendant deserves counsel is a red herring. Weinstein has his right to counsel and will get the best defense money can buy. As per hos contract, apparently, Sullivan can take on any ptivate client he likes and still retain his job and salary as a law professor. What remains are these facts: his decision to go to CA and defend Weinstein may have been a factor in Harvard’s deciding he was not the best person to serve as the head of a residential house of undergraduates. Period. Now, having clarified the situation, what is all this about “left wing” “end of freedom” “entitled snowflakes”? Get a grip.
5
@ Parap——-
You sound so much like a person who refuses to see the point of view of a person whose opinion is different from his/her own.
By the by....referring to college students as “kids” often causes the reader to dismiss your comments as the expressions of a small-minded person. Ever been to the campus of Harvard recently? Many undergraduates are old enough to serve in the military to defend the freedom you enjoy. Yes, those “Kids.” As I write this, Kendrick Castillo’s life is being honored in Colorado. Kendrick was a “kid” who was a hero when he attacked an armed student to save lives.
Just saying that you have a constitutional right to something doesn't remove it from the realm of moral condemnation. The slaveholders in Dred Scot had a legal right to legal representation in their suit to defend their "property rights", but that doesn't mean that we lionize their attorneys. There has to be some meritorious value that you are upholding, not just advancing bad causes for the heck of it.
I actually have a lot of respect for the ACLU defending the rights of Nazis to protest, because it gives weight to their core value that all speech, no matter how offensive, is not prohibit-able. They vindicate their values when they show that it applies to everyone, not just to those who speak what they agree with.
What value is Mr. Sullivan vindicating? That the rich and powerful should be able to victimize vulnerable young women?
8
Our system requires that even the most repugnant have a fair trial with access to legal counsel. What is most disturbing about how our system is actually run is not that people like Weinstein have excellent lawyers defending them, but that the poor typically go without effective representation. Perhaps young law students at Harvard should spend some time thinking about how to fix that.
3
Can everyone please stop repeating "presumption of innocence" like it means anything in this context? Presumption of innocence and "beyond a reasonable doubt" are intentionally high legal standards we use as to whether the government can apply criminal punishment. It was never meant to apply to a citizen's personal judgment of his fellow citizens.
I have every right to believe my neighbor is a scoundrel that I want nothing to do with and that anyone who would provide him legal defense has no place at a prestigious educational institution, while also conceding that there is not enough evidence to prove that he has engaged in criminal conduct.
I think Mr. Weinstein is a terrible person and will never spend another cent to support his work, regardless of whether Mr. Sullivan can pull some legal rabbit out of his hat to convince 12 people that they shouldn't convict him of particular crimes.
5
Weinstein isn’t just a person he has become a potent symbol of the appalling behavior of powerful men to subordinate women in the workplace over decades, even generations. His exposure unleashed the entire MeToo movement. It’s disingenuous to hand-wave away his actions by equating them to the mundane crimes of nondescript villains.
Weinstein does have a right to the best representation his considerable resources can buy. But any legal titan with a reputation and in a position of trust and responsibility towards vulnerable or young female students should surely have exhibited more careful judgment of the consequences of joining the Weinstein Dream Team. This lack of sensitivity condemns him as ill-suited to his position at Harvard.
4
The lizard brain connects the dots. It exists in hi IQ accomplished people as well as the masses. Look at all the bright people supporting Trump. Their higher functioning thinking abilities are subordinated to their primitive sense of us-them identities. Now the intellect is in the service of this powerful motivator. What is happening at Harvard is the mirror image of this phenomena. The pursuit of objectivity is abandoned. It's abut taking sides and winning. This is an ever spreading contagion in this country and poses a mortal threat to the functioning of democracy. Robert Sapolsky is a must read on this topic. It is what we are up against between each other and within ourselves.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-02-12/your-brain-nationalism
3
I dispise the defendant and support, demand, the rights of the attorney to defend him. For shame harvard
7
Kennedy’s comments are seriously undermined by some serious points. First, his arguments advantaging Sullivan’s rights - while true - over the rights, concerns and welfare of the students are also utterly callous and tone-deaf.
Plus, in the course of his argument he also uses the shockingly racist term “mau-maued” in describing what he believes is being done to Sullivan by the students. Clearly the comparison is not a positive one (although many students today might take it as a compliment to be compared to a colonized indigenous people rising up against the British I doubt that’s what Kennedy had in mind).
As far as I’m concerned this speaks volumes about who Mr. Kennedy is and in what century his thinking is rooted. One would hope that Harvard law professors had advanced far beyond this a long time ago.
In my book language counts. You don’t have the luxury of a “slip of the tongue” or any imprecision when you are writing an op ed for the NYT on an important question.
Kennedy is old guard defending old school thinking that past noble deeds and positive practice give someone the license to then take any case , because “everyone has the right to a defense” or maybe because it’s a really challenging case or whatever.
As others have pointed out, however, no one is compelled to defend a case when doing so will have implications for others to whom they also have a responsibility. There are plenty of others waiting to do it.
3
@Lin Kaatz Chary Randall Kennedy is black. So is Ronald Sullivan. If he uses the term "mau-maued" you can safely assume that it's with a full understanding of the phrase's history, and perhaps a bit of irony that you missed.
I guess that Harvard forgot the example set by one of its most famous sons, John Adams. John Adams, who defended the despised British soldiers who committed the Boston Massacre. A sad day for Harvard.
4
A bunch of 'mush for brains' 16 year olds are telling the supposed grown-ups what is best? Great.
2
Mr, Kennedy, once again the NY Times fails to do its homework. Mr. Sullivan's fitness for the Deanship of
Winthrop House has long been an issue for the students and house tutors. His decision to take on the Weinstein case is a clear indication of what he values- his clients and not the students. Deanships are conferred at the pleasure of Harvard and therefore can be rescinded at any time.
6
Maybe those protesting students can get their mommies and daddies to come up to college and tell them "you're special" and hold their hands and give them a "safe space". Give them all a "participation" medal and a bowl of ice cream. But whatever you do don't say "this is reality", deal with it.
5
"Let’s assume the good faith of such declarations (though some are likely mere parroting). Even still, they should not be accepted simply because they represent sincere beliefs or feelings."
Hmmm... wonder why women would be angry & not trust a man who would choose to be one of MANY lawyers defending a rich, powerful man accused of abusing women. This isn't a pro bono case. This isn't a case to defend a specific legal principal. He has every right to take cases for notoriety & money.
Please grant women the right of being appalled that a person who would take such as case would be their "counselor". People get angry when they voice legitimate concerns and are accused of "parroting". I'm sure some of the authors stated views have been "parrot(ed)" as well.
4
Rakesh Khurana pandering to children's tweets and personal ideology based on more tweets. He seems to be acceleratingly dissolving Harvard's reputation as a place to debate - not attack, think logically - not emotionally, and honor freedom of speech - not censorship.
Not sure what this vintage of Harvard grads will accomplish, not everyone can have a career in whining whilst skimming off donor funds.
4
I lived in Winthrop House for three years, graduating in 2015. Mr. Sullivan and Mrs. Robinson were my faculty deans (known then as Housemasters). I would like to begin my comment by saying the presumption of innocence and right to due process are cornerstones of our justice system. Mr. Weinstein has a right to assemble his defense team, and defense attorneys should be applauded for their work. This said, Mr. Sullivan was in a unique position as the champion of the students who live in Winthrop. It is not difficult to understand that a victim of sexual assault may feel uncomfortable coming forward, knowing his/her champion is defending someone accused of raping and assaulting many women. Mr. Sullivan had made a commitment to Winthrop students first, before volunteering to defend Weinstein. Years before this controversy, Winthrop students often complained that the Housemasters were distant and absent. Winthrop was consistently ranked last among the upperclass houses. I don't believe Harvard would remove Mr. Sullivan only because of his choice of client. There were many issues in the house, and this one may have been the last straw.
8
Have to agree about the discomfort people would feel but they are all there to respect the institution and the right to a defense. People are not perfect and life is not fair and many, but not all discomfort, is a source of growth or strength. Rape and child abuse are evil but those accused deserve defense. The evil of Naziism is pure and they got defense even by a Jewish holocaust survivor in Israel. It’s difficult but a necessary part of having protections. Considering no protest of him defending Aaron Hernandez makes this protest somewhat ingenious b
1
@Wayne What I am saying, is that they weren't great Housemasters to begin with. From the communications I have seen regarding this particular controversy, they did not communicate well with the students. In addition, I think it is fair to consider that Mr. Weinstein is a powerful individual with many attorneys. Mr. Sullivan is not the only person available to defend him. I don't believe the students were questioning whether or not Mr. Weinstein should have a solid legal defense team. They were asking "Why Ron?" Of course, I should not presume to speak on the students' behalf, but here I am. I have not been a resident at Winthrop for four years. I just remember, even then, they weren't great Housemasters.
4
So lawyers should only defend people you have decided are not guilty, or that you deem worth defending, or they are not good lawyers?
Sounds pretty ridiculous huh?
I would surely not hire the author of these false analogies to represent me in court: "Suppose atheist students claimed that they did not feel 'safe' confiding in a faculty dean who was an outspoken Christian or if conservative students claimed that they did not feel 'safe' confiding in a faculty dean who was a prominent leftist."
Sexual assaults on campus bring the reality and the fear of violence into students' lives. This is not the case with atheism nor assertive Christianity. More than 25% of female students are sexually assaulted during their years on campus (as is 1 in 20 male students). The author’s comparisons are far from relevant.
The threat to safety and the threat of trauma are very real for college women, at a time when the Trump administration's Sec. DeVos has been aggressively eroding Title IX protections for female students. This is not an an academic freedom issue; it is an issue of student safety and freedom from fear and trauma. At stake are not mere "sincere beliefs or feelings," in the words of this essay. The threat of physical violence and humiliation implicit in the campus rape and assault statistics is real, not imagined. But all too often administrators try to bury it or ignore it entirely out of fear of alarming parents and incurring bad publicity when an accused assailant battles a criminal charge in court.
This article is another example of ignoring and even vilifying the victims and potential victims.
4
The lawyer did not sexually assault anyone! He is doing his job. That has nothing to do with a house full of students.
1
Nicholas Christakis at Yale should reach out to Mr. Sullivan to provide perspective, having been similarly targeted by students at Yale. Harvard's actions are taken to keep peace in the house and are not a reflection on Mr. Sullivan's choice to provide legal defense to a client.
2
@alcqa: The two cases could be compared. But the Christakis's case involved a lot more direct interaction with the students, a controversy about student life (the Christakises defending the enjoyment of offensive Halloween costumes) Sullivan's case seems to have nothing directly to do with his role as a dean. But yes, the cases have some similarities.
This divide reflects a generation gap between overzealous, pampered students and jaded law faculty who ostensibly cling to the old chestnut--that every defendant is entitled to counsel.
Robinson demonstrated very poor judgment in taking on Weinstein as a client. As a longtime faculty member and residential dean he should have been more attuned to the attitudes and feelings of his charges. It was a no-brainer. Students are like that at these schools.
Weinstein has access to the best legal help money can buy and Robinson might have pursued many more worthwhile cases.
So, why Weinstein? Notoriety and money.
Robinson and Kennedy seem to have forgotten that universities exist to educate and serve its students rather than exorbitantly compensated faculty.
Robinson's blackness did not protect him from the outrageous indignation of zealous student-activist types.
What an irony. History has come full circle.
4
So, you have already convicted him in your mind, and therefore he is not entitled to a defense?
Wow.... just wow!!!!
2
@JD: Sullivan. But who's counting?
1
@JD Thank goodness you can reach into Mr Sullivan's head and determine his motives.
The principle that accused persons are entitled to a defense is part of what makes the US a Democratic Republic. There seem to be a lot of people who don't believe in this basic principle or who believe that only incompetent attorneys should represent people accused of a crime. Perhaps a civics course needs to be added as a mandatory class for freshmen. Harvey Weinstein is in my opinion an abominable person who belongs in prison, but he deserves our guaranteed right to a competent defense and attorneys should not be shamed or ostracized for doing their jobs. In this situation the students are wrong and their argument is based on emotion and bias. If this is the only reason that Harvard investigated and relieved the dean, they are also wrong.
6
They would believe if they were the accused.
4
If Harvard allows its attorney faculty/deans/house masters to take outside cases, then it doesn't get to choose which one that person takes. We all agree it must be very difficult to defend a person of a heinous crime - one that the attorney may truly believe his client actually committed. But this is the basis of our entire legal system. When we start causing consequences in employment due to our disagreement of their choice, we have moved down a very slippery slope indeed.
It's it final exam time at most of the Ivies? Shouldn't these delicate little students be studying for their finals? Or are they just too "traumatized" to do so.
My late husband went to Yale and I know many people who went to Harvard. I'm VERY glad my eldest grandson did not apply to either as I think the environment at both has become a trip down the rabbit hole.
5
Generation wimp! University used to be a bastion of free speech for ALL sides of an issue. Now it has become a dictatorship of, I'm sorry to say, ( predominantly ) leftist ideas. And it wouldn't necessarily be so devastating if it would be about ideas, but it is more leftist tantrum tempers. How can we expect the less educated swaths of the society to be able to have a civilized dialogue, when the so called intellectual elites are spoiled and childish and are educated in a pluralism proofed environment?
6
I don't care if the person is Atticus Finch or some money grubber. No attorney should receive condemnation for agreeing to ethically represent a client accused of a crime in an American court of criminal law. I find the sanctimony of some of the comments in this section about being a Harvard Dean, or being a counselor in loco parentis in a college dorm to be disingenuous and self serving. The highest call of any attorney is to honorably and ethically represent the accused. Shame on Harvard! An awful, even anti-American lesson, is being taught to the student body.
763
If Mr. Sullivan's choice to represent Mr. Weinstein undermines his suitability as a house-dean among the students he serves, then why on earth should he remain in that particular role? Does serving his highest calling as a lawyer entitle him to continue on as a house-dean regardless the students' wishes? Being justified in one role doesn't make one blameless in another.
28
@randy tucker
I am a retired corporate litigator. I've represented some 'hounds' -- but no one like Weinstein … let alone someone accused ('rightly' OR 'wrongly') of a violent crime (or of any crime at all).
The guys and gals who have, and do, have more courage than I can imagine.
In any case, it's hard to fathom how it is that 'ordinary people' … let alone Harvard-'educating' students ... could fail to see the truth of the idea that if ANYONE is to be denied competent counsel ... in ANY circumstance of substantial criminal consequence ... the right to counsel and so much more of the rights 'expected' by our Constitutional won't be worth the i.ou. of our many-ways bankrupt president.
39
@randy tucker
Of course it is ethically fine and good to represent Harvey Weinstein, but I don't think that is the point behind firing him--a point which I don't think was well articulated by anyone involved.
I think the point of firing him is this. He and his wife act as a support system for a certain set of students. As the article said, they are supposed to be like parents to the students they serve in this role. I assume they live in the same building as these students and are very present figures in their lives.
Among the students they support are students who have been the victim of sexual assault. Indeed, I believe one duty they have in their role is reporting sexual assault to the university when it is reported to them. I also assume they are supposed to be there to help students navigate their way through official proceedings involving sexual assault.
The problem is that students who have faced sexual assault will not feel comfortable going to Mr. Sullivan as a source of support. Representing H.W. interferes with his ability to serve in his role as a support system for students. It may not make him any different of a person, but students will not be able to look at him the same way. They will not feel comfortable going to him.
The problem is not that he is a bad person or is any worse at acting as a support system. The problem is that he cannot be as good of a support system to certain students, because those students will not view him as they did before.
23
Every citizen is entitled to Due Process and zealous representation.
I doubt the students would complain if the person on trial were accused of conduct of far greater moral disapprobation; i.e., capital murder.
Indeed, the students would probably applaud such action.
Anyone familiar with the judicial system knows that a fair trial, without error, is more efficient in the long run. Suppose Weinstein suffers an adverse outcome: Would the protesters relish a result without appealable errors? You would think they would. Apparently they fail to understand that this would be a good thing and that their professor would help in avoiding error.
4
So now these students want to deny fellow citizens legal representation guaranteed in our founding documents. So it is safe to assume there is much more they do not understand. Not only our system of justice but basic fairness which is something they at least pretend to value.
One, I think, should be at least a bit disturbed upon learning that Harvard students have apparently no understanding of our legal system, not where, what, or why.
So one can only conclude that the students for whatever reason also missed out on American and English history including the reading of the multitudinous books touching the subject of an individuals right to a fair trial.
It is difficult to fathom how a collage student could be unaware of the basic foundations of our Democracy. The Magna Carta, which means 'The Great Charter is one of the most important documents in western history as it established the principle that everyone is subject to the law, even the king, and guarantees the rights of individuals, the right to justice and the right to a fair trial.
5
If any of the folks involved in this purge is one day arrested and, then, not allowed their choice of defense counsel, what would they think? Criminal defense work is not for the faint of heart. It is what I did for more than twenty-five years. I am shocked and disappointed that any lawyers express support for what Harvard did.
5
This is a shameful story. Simply stated, an accused is entitled to the representation (s)he prefers, and, usually, can afford. The lawyer is required to provide the best representation (s)he can muster. I accepted that brief guidance before I became a lawyer, nearly fifty years ago, and I believe it today.
9
Excellent article by Professor Kennedy! Agreed. This was a terrible decision by Harvard. While it is important to treat students with respect and as human beings. Students should not be allowed to dictate policy or be allowed to decide what is appropriate. based on emotions or feelings. This can be a recipe for disaster.
9
If the Professor took a case defending a Hollywood tycoon accused of murder would there have been a similar outcry?
Perhaps not as most people assume that someone accused of murder has a right to a legal defense. But many believe that someone accused of sexual harassment has no such right because they are presumed guilty regardless of what a court of law may determine.
8
If “activist” students at Harvard Law look down on a lawyer willing to defend a controversial client, what does that say about their future in a field that guarantees a competent defense, no matter the client or crime?
My respect for that institution that followed that path, my own Dad’s alma matter, has diminished.
5
@Michael
They aren't law students; they are undergrads.
6
Mr. Sullivan is entitled to represent Mr. Weinstein, and families who pay a lot for their children to attend Harvard are entitled to be concerned about Mr. Sullivan serving as a dean that presides over the parts of the student population.
4
Why is it the purview of undergrads to even know what legal activities their elders and betters undertake in their adult and professional lives?
6
Lots of nuances in the letters sent in on this subject. But to me it seems that Harvard students need to grow up and not be coddled. It is a tough world out here.
8
@JimVanM
It is a tough world out there. My question is why is it only a tough world for the students? Why not for their professors too?
2
Harvard is very expensive. They are just listening to their customers.
2
This make no sense. If he had represented a poor uneducated man accused of murder, would students feel uncomfortable confiding in him about non-sexual violence at the dorm because they worried he was biased against their case? And the students wouldn't feel comfortable complaining to his wife, who was also at the dorm, because of guilt by association? By definition, she has no identity aside from her husband?
7
I was an undergraduate at Winthrop House and I also did my first year law school contracts course with Randall Kennedy. My years at Harvard Law School were marked by student protests to tenure an African-American professor. Student protests reflect a zeitgeist that cannot be ignored, regardless of the legal principles involved. Perhaps even Thurgood Marshall may have defended someone as appalling as Weinstein -- powerful people have used their power in appalling ways throughout history. But this time we have reached the tipping point in most countries on this type of misconduct. Mr. Sullivan, unless he was willfully tone-deaf, should have expected this outcome.
8
Thank you for your opinion piece, Professor Kennedy. This is appalling.
A close friend of mine, now-retired Law Professor Ginny Hench at the Univ. of Hawaii Richardson School of Law, worked on the Innocence Project. Thankfully, she was willing to represent and advocate for those whom our society had wrongfully condemned and ostracized. But without fine legal representation, how are we to find out who is innocent or conversely, fairly found guilty of what?
5
The question that should be asked is what is Harvard teaching its students about the rights of all accused, rich or poor, despised or popular to legal representation in a court of law.
9
I must confess I was bewildered when I read of the decision. I am still bewildered. It seems run counter to the mission of educating students in American jurisprudence.
9
I teach a required writing course to undergraduates at the honors college of a large state school and often have sections of mostly freshmen. They show up every semester untutored, as far as I can tell, in civics. They don’t seem to understand that the basis for any kind of individual justice in our system is that everyone, even and especially the very worst of us, deserves and is even provided, a defense—ideally, a zealous one. In fact, the more sure we are of a defendant’s guilt, or the more repulsed we are by his or her crimes, the more important that defense becomes, because it is the only way to make us equal before the law. The system has a long way to go to make that a reality especially given the mass incarceration, plea-bargain industry and “war on drugs” of recent decades, but the only principle that can save the system is the one it was founded upon—that it’s better for ten guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to go to jail. Providing a rigorous defense of a high-profile pariah demonstrates an understanding of the system and the principles that make it work. Harvard administrators have ignored those principles in favor of pandering to young, bright, misguided and largely civically untried and uninformed students. “Safe” is such a low, slippery bar for students to aspire to. This decision is one more example of the ways in which administrators—mentors and leaders and experts—on campuses are abdicating their responsibilities to teach.
11
So much for presumption of innocence and the notion that everyone is entitled to a proper defense - just as long as it's not from our university. Harvard should be ashamed of itself and this politically correct pandering.
10
1 in 3 women on college campuses in the US are sexually assaulted during their time in school, and you have the audacity to claim that students feeling unsafe because their dean is defending a serial rapist is "mere parroting?"
How about taking a backseat and listening to survivors--who are disproportionately NOT men--before you make such sweeping assumptions about intention and character, which is exactly what you're accusing the university writ large of doing to your friend?
You're angrier that students are calling the character of your colleague into question for defending a sexual predator than the fact that these horrible acts of violence were committed in the first place, making it clear that your Mr. Sullivan's reputation is more important to you than the actual safety of students at Harvard.
And FYI, having legitimate triggers as a consequence of lived trauma(s) aren't just "beliefs or feelings." Post Traumatic Stress Disorder causes lasting changes to your mind/body responses to stressors by reducing hippocampal volume, modifying amygdala functioning, and changing cortisol and norepinephrine balances within the brain.
But I guess I'm just parroting, huh?
11
@C Mandler
if "1 in 3 women on college campuses in the US are sexually assaulted during their time in school ..." then perhaps we should close down college campuses. Let's stack rank campuses and force closure of the worst until the problem is gone.
2
@SSS, the problem will not be gone until the colleges and universities face up to it and deal with it. For every 20 or more females assaulted on campuses by males, one male is assaulted--most likely by another male. It would stand to reason, then, that we should just exclude males from college enrollment--"until the problem is gone."
Or administrators could provide the safety that female students need for an equal educational opportunity. But then, Profs. Kennedy and Sullivan would need to undergo some re-education themselves, along with males who think they are entitled to harass and assault women while the college ignores victims' right to a safe environment.
2
It is sad that some Harvard Law students object to the right of counsel. Yet many of them will fashion lucrative careers representing the dregs of corporate America.
10
An added example of the need for lawyers to be allowed to represent people who are publicly scorned would be John Adams, who represented and defended British soldiers after the Boston Massacre.
6
Under the Rule Of Law in this country Harvey Weinstein is innocent until proven guilty and entitled to a defense. A defense, not by a carpenter, not by a plumber, but by a qualified
lawyer. That Mr. Sullivan chose to be part of Mr. Weinstein's
legal team is not for Winthrop House students to decide. They
can think and even think they know that Mr. Weinstein is guilty and they can and should express their views but it is not within their purview to seek Mr. Sullivan's removal from positions he holds at Harvard.
The President of Harvard, using his Bully Pulpit, in a fifteen-minute auditorium address to all students and faculty of Harvard should have been able to explain and therefore calm all apprehensions held by said students and faculty. He might have pointed out that the defense lawyers at the Nuremberg Trials are to be commended for their dedication to the Rule Of Law despite any mis-givings they might have had.
The ultimate shame of this sickening situation is that Harvard and its President, of all the places in this world, have been unable to teach it students the ability to think critically and rationally.
There is NEVER a right time for hot-headed emotional,
vicious and destructive behavior.......on anyones part!
8
@RYR.G
No, Weinstein is not presumed innocent. The presumption of innocence is a legal fiction that applies only in criminal trials. Only the jurors or judge in the case are required to apply a presumption of innocence until all the evidence is in, and the presumption of course can be overcome by evidence of guilt.
Outside of the jurors trying the case, Weinstein is subject to no presumption of innocence and we rational citizens can deem him guilty based on common sense and what is known.
If you are not a juror, you owe Weinstein and other rapists nothing.
4
Only a few of the commenters seem to understand the situation. Ronald Sullivan did NOT lose his job teaching law at Harvard; he lost his role as in loco parentis (dean) at Harvard’s Winthrop House. The residents of Winthrop House are NOT Harvard law students; they are undergrads.
12
Every man has a right to a legal defense, but he does not have a right to my services.
As an attorney, I choose who to represent and would refuse to use my time, skills, resources and passions to defend those that I find morally repugnant. I would not bring frivolous lawsuits on behalf of Donald Trump to avoid paying creditors, though he has the right to make such claims. I would not defend O.J. Simpson or anyone else that I believed butchered their wives, even though they have a right to a criminal defense. I would not bring bankruptcy claims on behalf of AIG executives after they tanked the economy, even they have right to argue that taxpayers should reimburse them every cent they lost.
Being an attorney and believing in Constitutional rights of the accused does not give a license to close your eyes and cover your ears to forward passionate arguments for despicable ends. I choose to spend my career forwarding causes that I am proud of, not striving and struggling to get one inch past reasonable doubt in order to get sexual predators off.
8
@JSD
Yes, but of course we don't know whether the defendant did anything morally repugnant until the jury speaks.
2
@DaveD
No, we absolutely can. I make judgments on what I believe to be true everyday, including the character of my fellow citizens and whether or not I believe they have done things I would find despicable.
All the jury is deciding is if the government has provided enough evidence to meet the incredibly high burden of proof we require before we apply criminal penalties. We have no duty as citizens to cede our moral judgments to a jury.
3
I am shocked and saddened by the sophistry shown by the comments on this issue. Harvard, and the commenters, ought to be ashamed in defending both the students and Harvard.
I hope that those who comment are not and never become attorneys.
What is this "safe space" garbage? A great university creates a safe space for dissenting and controversial thought, not for the "comfort" of a few immature students.
9
what is the issue here ? Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Weinstein are free to choose each other as attorney and client.
A college dormitory is free to have a say in who becomes its dean.
10
This is the basis of the future fair and impartial judiciary?
5
I am surprised that another member of the Harvard law faculty has not come ubder censure for behavior. Alan Derschewitz has defended indefensible Trump on the basis of law and the Constitution. Why has he not been ejected?
3
@jhbev-Derschewitz is not a Dean. He is not a House Master, living in a dorm-like situation. There in lies the difference.
2
Hey, I don't think Weinstein has been convicted of anything. As far as the law deals with him he is an innocent man. Suppose he is totally exonerated of all charges?
5
Harvard has made a mistake. I don't know anything about Dean Sullivan or his motives for taking Weinstein as a client. I do know that the country is founded on a body of laws and it is the stability of those laws amidst the changing political landscape that have kept us afloat. Unfortunately, they sometimes provide cover for the worst among us.
Harvey Weinstein is a monster. He has taken every advantage of being a man in our patriarchal society to abuse women and power in the most hideous ways. He has been protected by other men. It is probable that both Sullivan and the writer of this essay benefit from the same privileges. For too long we have allowed them to get away with it, and they have to be stopped.
This isn't the way.
At first I disagreed with Harvard removing Dean Sullivan, thinking that they were capitulating to political correctness. Then I did some more reading on the subject, and learned that there have been allegations of substantial mismanagement of Winthrop House by Dean Sullivan and his wife. These allegations pre-date Sullivan's representation of Weinstein. There is more to this story than Harvard bowing to politically correct students who do not appreciate how our justice system works.
5
Any recourse for students who are traumatized by Harvard's cravenness and hypocrisy?
4
The idea that lawyers who defend people are themselves at higher risk of the behavior their clients are charged with is twisted and sick. People who claim not to feel safe around Sullivan because of who he defends are not thinking. Are physicians who treat AIDS to be presumed to be infected themselves? Are psychiatrists to be presumed to be insane? Do students at Harvard know what a profession is?
2
These students (most of whom will become Supreme Court justices) should be taught that they will be admitted into a learned profession, and precisely what their obligations are as members of that learned profession.
A tenet of a learned profession (that is, law, medicine and the clergy) is that its members don't have the luxury of joining public mobs like those pre-judging Weinstein. The lawyer or lawyers who defends old Harvey owe an obligation to their client -- not to society. Part of the prestige and honor of being a member of a learned profession comes from being able to deal with public scorn that comes with representing disfavored clients.
And even if other lawyers don't get the fee for defending Weinstein, they should either protect the backs of the lawyers who are defending him, or if they can't do that, then just keep quiet.
And by the way, exactly how does Harvard know at this point that Weinstein is guilty?
3
Emailed to Professor Sullivan on May 11:
Dear Professor Sullivan,
I just read the May 11 piece in the New York Times about your and your wife's termination as Faculty Deans on June 30. I am surprised that 'the best and the brightest' do not understand that everyone deserves a legal defense. I am also stunned that your assistance on the Weinstein team is not being compared to retired Law professor Alan Dershowitz's own actions over the decades, 'defending the indefensible' on numerous occasions, including situations involving assaults on and murder of women.
If Harvard is to maintain its reputation as the premier institution of higher learning in the United States, then I think you must rub its nose in its ignorance and prevail. I regret that this burden has been added to your plate.
Godspeed to your wife and you.
3
Rape is not a political opinion. Sexual assault is not a personal conviction, it is a real problem the house dean is supposed to address. It is, in fact, one of his most critical and important duties.
It is a false equivalent to a “conservative” student not feeling uncomfortable with a “liberal” dean. You prove these women”s point with your opinion piece.
4
Everyone has a right to a lawyer in the U.S. It is now law through the Gideon case, but before we were even a country, John Adams represented the Red Coats who shot at demonstrators in Boston.
It is the enlightened position, and the law, to presume innocence and to provide a legal defense, either self paid, or paid by the government. How could Harvard students not understand this? Are we regressing to crazy mobs asking for conviction without a trial?
3
The snowflakes win again. It's unbelievable that these students get the best legal jobs in the world with all of their complaining and cry sessions about everything, and Harvard coddles them by cowering under pressure. All for providing fair and competent representation to even the most undesirable clients, which is our civic responsibility.
These Harvard students, and the Harvard administration that has decided to go full coddle mode, have completely forgotten that any person accused of a crime, including Mr. Weinstein, is innocent until proven guilty. This is one of the most basic tenets of the law. They judge him guilty already, and now want to impute his crimes to his lawyers and punish him by taking away his position at the school? Sounds like their Harvard education is failing them miserably.
This reminds me of the Biglaw attorneys who had a cry and protested over working for a law firm that gave legal services to Trump. Why not quit and give that job to someone who gets that just because you represent a client does not mean you agree with that client?
So disappointed in how far the snowflakes have gotten in our society. It's acting like this that turns people off of liberals and liberal causes and causes people like Trump, who, for all his faults, does not bend to dumb snowflake ideas, to be elected. This needs to stop, and it needs to stop now!
5
A law school that doesn't believe in the foundations of our legal system is a pitiful thing.
4
If you are concerned by the current Trump administration assault on civil liberties, you should be angry and upset by the Harvard's students actions. Either they are so ignorant one wonders how they were accepted to Harvard. Or maybe Harvard is not as elite as it thinks.
The notion of legal representation was not always in place in English common law. It was a hard fought right which stands for the individual (however despicable) against the power of the prosecutorial state.
Someone should give these "kids" a copy of Clarence Darrow's biography or Meyer Levin's Compulsion.
2
College administrators ( in an Ivy league/Liberal college ) cowed by the hysterical mob, how surprising?
Once again reason ,logic and any semblance of fairness is discarded in order to appease a vocal minority (who nonetheless claim to represent the views of the entire student body), who by now have mastered the utterly cynical and disingenuous use of phrases such as "safety", "survivors", "trauma" , social media and traditional media (who happily carry water) to bully the college administration.
These "activists" know by now, based on numerous shameful episodes in the recent past (think Prof. Brett Weinstein in Evergreen College) that the second they utter the word "safety" college administrators will buckle and will go to any ridiculous lengths to appease them.
These are not "activists" but cynical, deluded and power hungry proto-fascists.
Shameful and frankly disgusting.
And the blame lies squarely with the so called adults in the college administration who are so easily cowed by these deranged mobs.
Shameful.
4
Stories like this would make me very concerned as a father if not for the fact that we have very good universities in Switzerland that have not (yet?) been taken over by lunatics.
5
Harvard and all universities have got to take control of their schools and shut down these students who are bullying the ones who are supposed to be in control. Protest: fine. Protest all you want. Scream and shout other people down: fine. Do that until you lose your voice. But stop giving in to these childish so-called students who seem to know nothing about how to deal with issues they don't like.
Wait until they go out in the "real world" and find that not everyone is going to accept their whining and carrying on. They can stamp their feet all they want but once they are in their chosen profession they are going to have a rude awakening.
You can't always get what you want. Grow up.
5
It’s not that he is “reviled” by a majority of students, but that he is a sexual predator and rapist of the highest order, and will likely serve decades in prison. It’s also that his “defense” with necessarily and inevitably include re-victimization of the women with a disgusting smear campaign. Harvard is a private institution that has a right to disassociate itself from amoral people that actively and publicly work against its values.
3
This is a very important op-ed.
It is frightening and appalling that students admitted to one of our top universities - presumably many of whom are future leaders in government and business and were admitted to begin with due to their intellect and character - have no concept of due process, of the importance of upholding constitutional principles and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The freedoms we enjoy rest on this foundation. The fact that they do not comprehend this is alarming. If I were a parent of one of these students I would seriously question how despite being admitted to Harvard their children seem to be completely uneducated.
7
I wholeheartedly agree with Professor Kennedy. If a faculty dean can't be trusted to provide effective and valuable counseling service to his students over who he defends as an attorney then Harvard has endorsed a litmus test that has no beginning and no end.
What are the prerequisites for a dean to counsel students over issues of abortion, sexual identity, alcohol or drug use, politics allegiances, issues of race etc.?
A dean's perspective on anyone of these issues could either render them qualified or unqualified simply based on the perceptions of a group of students in any given year. And that preference may change into the exact opposite when a new class of students arrives.
Harvard has now embarked on the proverbial slippery slope. It will end at some point and it will end badly because they will inevitably have to say 'no' to some students and that response will quite rightly be seen as arbitrary, biased and inconsistent with todays decision..
Harvard has chosen its bias and has chosen badly. An institution should never act on the mere assumption that an individual cannot do their job and meet their students needs.
If actual deeds demonstrate otherwise, then so be it. But Harvard has chosen to appear sensitive and unbiased when all they have really shown is their desire to avoid controversy at any cost.
Such foolishness always ends with the wrong people paying the wrong price anyway. A word to the wise.
5
In our constitutional republic, everyone - no matter how scorned by society - deserves the right to quality representation and a fair trial.
As a matter of principle, I believe that the only legitimate reasons that a lawyer may proffer in order to decline to accept a case is if it involves matters of law that are beyond his or her expertise, or if he or she has a conflict of interest.
What these students are demanding so that their fragile psyches won't be damaged is nothing less than an abdication of the responsibilities that protect all of our freedoms from the tyranny of mob sensibilities. These students should instead seek therapy so that these psyches can instead dialectically question the legitimacy of these sensibilities and so that they can withstand the tribulations of the real world.
5
@unreceivedogma
On the other hand (yes, I'm arguing against myself), Weinstein is entitled to a good lawyer, not the best lawyer his money can buy (which is a class privilege, not a right), nor even this specific lawyer.
2
Looks like Harvard U covered itself in shame. Could it be that money had a part in the college dean's decision ? After all, he's running a private & competitive business, where professors are paid workers and students paying customers. Shameful decision anyway !
4
Where would we be, without lawyers like Gerry Spence? He took a household joke, Imelda Marcos, turned her into a real person, and successfully defended her against the United States government. He also defended Randy Weaver, making the FBI look like a den of jackals. Should we hate on him?
Canadians have Marie Henein, who successfully defended one of the most unpopular men in Canada, Jian Gomeshi, against what later turned out to be a malicious campaign by his accusers. Should we hate on her?
The left and the right really aren't that different, in many ways. What the left wants to do with this hate campaign is to ensure that, anytime we choose to accuse someone of a despised act, that we can railroad him without due process. This is how many black men were sent to lynchings on the false accusations of white southern women. It's easy to find some despicable person who, while deserving a defense, does not deserve our respect. Then we justify railroading the common man and woman, without due process, to ensure that the hated among us are not treated equally.
Harvard ought to be ashamed of itself.
6
It seems best to choose a respected non-controversial scholar for such a prominent position. possibly from outside the current professor pool
My, my, my! I think these folks in Harvard have forgotten that all people are entitled to a defense under law in this country. Defending someone legally is not the same as supporting their crime. And if Harvard students and Dean are so concerned with what they consider unacceptable, why don't they trounce Trump, who has no legal defense, for his blatant consortium and praise for Hungary's Urban and Russia's Putin and North Korea's Jong-Un, all of whom have terrible public histories of abuse and tyranny.
There seems to be quite a bit of hypocrisy here whereas Sullivan is performing a legally appropriate defense as proscribed by the laws of this country as opposed to the monumental disgrace of the White House resident with his history of lying, cheating workers out of due wages and his personal declarations of misogyny with no question of legal approval to hide under!
Come on, Harvard, your entire history holds you to a higher legal ethic!
4
Left-wing oppression.
5
Between the Aunt Becky debacles elsewhere and Harvard’s own reckoning with grade inflation, discriminative admissions, and now this, I’d be suspicious of hiring anyone from the so-called “elite” universities.
But what do I know? I “just went to state school.”
3
The blackballing of lawyers who defend unseemly clients is a tradition in the Boston area. In 1770 John Adams defended those accused of the Boston Massacre, which made himself quite unpopular with the locals, and unemployable for many years to come.
3
Sen. Joe McCarthy. House Un-American Activities Committe.
Alice in Wonderland: first the verdict, then the trial.
Reality by the number of LIKES.
Death by a thousand tweets.
How little things change.
Harvard, bring back
Tom Lehrer.
3
Maybe argue Kennedy's point pro/con, but what kind of cockeyed equivalence is it to compare Houston/Marshall with Sullivan defending a rapist?
Houston and Marshall were bravely defending basic American civil liberties against entrenched power of white supremacy that had long made a joke of the US Constitution. They pushed the S. Court to finally grapple with the "meaning of our creed."
Sullivan is defending a psychopath of great power, wealth and arrogance, a notorious and publicized violator of women.
Per Reuters report, 70 woman have made charges of sex assault by HW.
Why did Kennedy make this nutty comparison?
4
Wintrhop House alum here to say, Don't be disingenuous, Prof. Kennedy.
The deans' dismissal was over this:
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/5/10/winthrop-climate/
4
@DianaF
Most of the posters focus on legal representation and not how Sullivan comported himself as Dean. Harvard has a responsibility to its students and staff. Sullivan remains employed and presumably still represents Weinstein. I don't see a problem. Most of the attorneys here understand that you don't wear two hats at the same time because of a conflict of interest. Again, whose interests are served here?
4
We are really debating the adversary system of criminal justice and the use of a jury to determine guilt or innocence.
If you believe in the adversary system then EVERY defendant [no matter how serious the crime] is entitled to full legal representation
If you want to argue that some crimes are so horrible that the defendant does not deserve legal representation then you are really supporting LYNCH law where the defendant is determined to be guilty BEFORE trial.
There are deficiencies in our criminal justice system but they are where poor defendants do not have access to competent legal counsel.
Public defenders are over worked and poor defendants do not have the means to hire forensic investigators.
Criticize this lack of competent representation instead of a rich defendant hiring a high powered attorney.
If the state's case is not strong enough the defendant should not be convicted. You do not make the state's case stronger by denying adequate defense counsel.
4
It could be appropriate for Sullivan to do both, represent Weinstein and give counsel and advice to women in the House for which he's Dean.
That would be if this was educational for him. If it is not just a legal service, but also an experience for him of the inside of the minds of victims and perps, so when he counsels young men and women, he really seriously knows what he is talking about.
I'm not saying that is his motive in this case or not, nor excusing this if its not. I'm saying that there is one way I could see this as good for everyone in that Harvard House.
If that is what is happening, then he ought to have given the House better leadership, talked with them and listened to them, so they were with him on this. Clearly, he didn't do that. It has run entirely off the rails.
In the military, that is called a loss of confidence in leadership. It is a separate question, and an important one.
3
In the past year alone, Jorge Domiguez, an emeritus Government professor, was found to have had decades worth of sexual harassment claims against him. Harvard took no action until the case was made public in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
At present, Roland Fryer, a Harvard Economics professor, is barred from his own lab on charges of sexual harassment - and yet he remains to be dismissed from his post.
As a current doctoral candidate at Harvard, I take seriously the wellbeing of my undergraduate students. But I also agree entirely with Mr. Kennedy's position - in particular, his accusation of "misguided outrage." Defending the accused, however repugnant their crimes, is core to our justice system. And it concerns me that, given the plethora of men on campus who have THEMSELVES actively perpetrated sexual harassment (with little recourse from the university, it should be noted), these undergraduates should applaud themselves for turning their attentions elsewhere. It also concerns me that the University would remove Sullivan from his post, but yet allow someone like Fryer to keep.
It saddens me to see the university cave to the hysterics of "cancel culture," but not the many leveled harassment claims filed by female students. There are men on campus who are publicly acknowledged to pose threats to the safety and well-being of the student body. There are administrators who condone their actions. If there's a stand to be taken, shouldn't it be at them?
3
Clarence Darrow chose to defend two of the most despised defendants in the history of American jurisprudence on the basis of the very same constitutional principle which Professor Kennedy describes: that of the right of every citizen, however reviled, to the presumption of innocence and legal representation before a jury of their peers. The presumption of innocence was at risk in that case also, since there was never any doubt of the two young men’s guilt. Had Darrow not stepped forward on principled grounds, the two would probably have been executed – they were sentenced to 99 years in prison – and the nation’s lust for vengeance would have been satisfied. Whatever Professor Sullivan’s motives in defending the equally reviled Harvey Weinstein may be, this constitutional principle supersedes students’ feelings, however real, though I fear that some students may believe that Professor Sullivan’s decision implies tacit support or approval of Weinstein’s actions. In shielding the reviled, the presumption of innocence protects us all from injustice. I agree with Professor Kennedy that the Harvard administration’s response to the situation represents a failure of leadership. If students at one of most prestigious universities in the country have so little grasp of such fundamental constitutional issues, the administration’s response also represents a failure to educate.
5
I don't know what "mau-maued" means but, otherwise, this is a great opinion piece, and I agree that students' decision to repudiate Mr. Sullivan is severely misguided. Except: the role of residential adviser is rather a personal one with dorm residents, and these particular residents have chosen to react against Mr. Sullivan so, it's just not going to work right now that he advise the students in the dormitory. The university hasn't said they disagree with Mr. Sullivan's representation of Harvey Weinstein, and maybe they won't ever. I hope they don't, and I disagree that Harvard officials should be pressed to make a statement about that.
Even Ivy league kids need to "grow up" sometimes.
2
This op-ed and many comments reflect the desire to divide our ideals from the practical world in which we seek to apply those ideals. In particular, they underrepresent the questions of disparate power that remain central to our understanding of judicial process.
The difficulty for Professor Sullivan is that our belief in defending the accused emerges from the need to protect the weak from the abuses of state and private power. In his most admirable work, Professor Sullivan applied the full weight of his intellect and his status -- reflected by his Harvard positions -- to act in defense of less powerful parties seeking justice -- this presumably inspired students at Winthrop House.
In the real world of power, his roles on law faculty, at Winthrop House, and as legal counsel reinforce each other. That is, Mr. Sullivan might not be given the same hearing in a courtroom if he were not an Ivy League professor.
The allegations against Harvey Weinstein embody the flagrant abuse of power exercised in its most primitive form: sexual violence. Our American way entitles Weinstein to a competent defense -- as in theory it entitles all defendants.
Weinstein lacks neither power and resources to mount a defense more rigorous than 99% of non-corporate defendants. Demanding Professor Sullivan restrain himself from adding to Weinstein's arsenal fails to harm a defendant with enough power to make credible his alleged to use the force of law and spying to exert his will.
4
I hope that Rakesh Khurana reads this oped piece. And issues an apology to Professor Sullivan.
6
What kind of "justice" system would we have if the accused did not have legal representation, particularly excellent representation, as with the likes of, among many others, Professor and Attorney Dershowitz, well known in the Harvard community and globally for his representation of horrible reprobates of all ilk ??
Sounds like Harvard students need some educating .......
4
I thought Harvard’s judgement was ridiculous and a sign of the times that we live in today. For a country that claims one is innocent until proven guilty I found it stomach churning that a defender is now considered guilty of something!
Even the inmates of Guantanamo have defenders and I don’t see them being demoted by the military!
Harvard,I fear is racially profiling. Pathetic!
4
Pathetic and dismaying. Another citadel fallen to the mob.
5
If the facts are as related in this editorial, then Harvard's actions in this matter are reprehensible, embarrassing, and just plain stupid. And the students who don't "feel safe" because they don't approve of a lawyer's client are being enabled by an administration that is complicit with the students' self-absorbed stupidity.
8
If one were to read between the lines, Professor Kennedy argues that young women at Winthrop House should not be reluctant to approach Professor Sullivan on issues of sexual harassment (or worse) simply because he has chosen to defend Harvey Weinstein.
He is no position to make that argument.
4
The progressives are eating their own
7
More stories from the left eating their own.
6
As a woman, lawyer, and instructor at a small college, students must learn not to confuse an attorney’s beliefs with those of a client. Everyone is entitled to a defense in the criminal justice system. The fact that Mr. Sullivan has a client who can pay well and is considered disgusting is irrelevant. As a student, there were professors I felt more comfortable with than others, and I know some of my students were not comfortable coming to me for advice or support. What has happened to freedom of expression? P.S. I’m a liberal.
8
I'm a Harvard Extension student who in 2017 interviewed in person with Prof. Sullivan and his wife for an assistant position. I didn't get the job, but they were both warm, polite, and extremely down to earth despite being so incredibly accomplished (look them up, it's hard to hold a candle to either of them).
I am shocked at the ignorance of the Harvard students who had the audacity to protest his position as dean. Lawyers do not have to agree with the moral positions of their clients. Lawyers can represent people they care for and admire, or they can represent people for a host of other reasons. Weinstein has already been stripped socially of his power; the legal proceedings are about the evidence. I am all for going after rapists etc., but if the evidence doesn't hold up we shouldn't still get to have a witch burning. Because the next time, the same process could punish someone innocent.
And in loco parentis--give me a break. I'm the same age as those College students and I rent an apartment where no one is protecting or coddling me. They are adults too, and can handle their issues accordingly.
17
It seems like a significant percentage of the population has forgotten the law, including the law students.
Someone is presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law, NOT in the court of public opinion! They are also entitled to legal representation.
Perhaps they ahould take this as a learning opportunity. I wouldn't want to hire one of them personally, if they can't even understand these basic concepts.
5
@1 bite at a time-He was not fired as a professor of law. He just lost the job of House Master. They are in a special position. Unless you have been an undergrad student living in one of the houses, or are closely connected to someone who has, you fail to understand the unique role of a House Master.
1
This slope has been very slippery for as long as there have been lawyers. We speak for our clients as our words relate to their legal rights. To that end, we have to fact-find and analyze what we find and figure out how these findings affect our clients' rights. That's the lawyer's job. But we are not PR people or professional spokespersons advancing clients' non-legal interests. And Harvard's approach -- essentially asserting that a defense counsel taking on an accused rapist monster disqualifies him from serving as a dean -- ignores this reality.
7
Amen!
3
To the students who appear to be self-traumatizing themselves over the fact that one of the deans has added an unsympathetic client to their list of far more likable clients:
You chose to attend a school that has educated current and former Supreme Court justices across the spectrum of ideology. Recent notables are Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia (sorry, Roberts, Kagen, Breyer, Gorsuch, but I'm just using those two).
These two people disagreed vehemently about many of the important issues of the day. And they did it as friends and colleagueswho respected the right of the other to stand for things that might have horrified them, while also appreciating the many good qualities in the other - things that helped them reach the Supreme Court, among other accomplishments.
If you think that you don't want an accomplished dean over your house - you move. Give up the opportunity to discuss, with an adult, how he could choose to defend both Rose McGown and Harvey Weinstein.
You might learn that life will be about doing your job while maintaining your own personal morals. You might find out that his suddenly taking a client you hate doesn't change him, just your self-inflicted view of him.
9
You are erroneously conflating the constitutional right to counsel (typically associated with an indigent defendant being provided by the court with a public defender) with the choice of a member of the bar who chooses to represent a high paying private client.
They are not the same.
At all.
Harvey can ask any lawyer he wants to represent him. It is a deep bench with many options, and he has the money to pay.
There is no law that requires any lawyer to say yes.
This situation smells awful and smacks of poor judgment, to say the least.
Harvard did the right thing.
10
What about a lawyer’s own personal convictions, their calling to the bar, about the right to a defence? Should protestors be allowed to sway the Hippocratic oath of a doctor scrubbing in to do surgery on an accused murder? How about the assumption of innocence? You are skimming right past quite a few important concepts baked into our foundational social understanding.
You think its perfectly okay for the mob to decide who gets representation - not only that but who does the representing? I do not and would implore you, and this group of hooligans, to think much, much harder. This is highly dangerous and Harvard should be deeply ashamed.
3
As distasteful as it may be to many (even myself), Professor Kennedy makes a strong argument on behalf of Professor Sullivan. Protesting students and faculty are very misguided and need to step back and review their bias and irrational behavior.
Harvard Law is much better than becoming reactionary to these type of influences.
4
There seems to be a lot of confusion between "defending him", and "being his defense lawyer." These could be categorically different.
Someone says Sullivan makes a practice of defending rich, violent men. It's not inconceivable that a person might be a "mob lawyer" type, who really did sympathize with the jerks, and in that case he (of she) might really be unsuitable as a dean. But that would have presumably become evident before this, and nobody has mentioned anything about it. From the comments, people are saying they feel unsafe just because he is legally defending Weinstein, not that they've always felt unsafe because of the way he acts. (There was apparently a mention of high-handedness with the staff. But that's not what people are complaining about.)
7
Take the king's money, do the king's bidding.
If you're a trial lawyer, defense or plaintiff, then you're moonlighting as a college dean
If you're a college dean, then you're moonlighting as a practicing attorney.
When your day job conflicts with your night gig, pick the one you want to serve first. This isn't academic freedom. It's jobs.
Make the issue starker, and see what your answer is. If he were defending, say, someone who was engaged in sexual trafficking and exploitation of young girls and boys (yes, arguably that's the film industry, but...) would the answer remain the same?
There is no right to moonlight. Even for a Harvard dean.
7
Sullivan, as an attorney, can defend whom he chooses. He was/is one of several attorneys for Weinstein.
As a Dean of an undergrad dorm, however, he should have been a bit more discerning. The "...Optics..." of representing Harvey Weinstein, let's face it, are none too good. And, it's not like Harvey had no options.
The students, of course, make themselves look silly by saying that they personally suffer trauma as a result of Prof. Sullivan's decision to represent Weinstein for an undoubtedly substantial fee.
However, the students have a point and it was Prof Sullivan himself who put Harvard in the middle.
4
The phrase "university governance" has become an oxymoron. Basically these institutions are now managed by a bunch of overpaid, under-spined academic leaders social-justice-warrior educrats. All cowering under -- in some cases, abetting -- mob rule.
One of America's last remaining bastions of greatness is being eviscerated from the inside out. It is painful to watch.
8
Harvard took the extraordinary step of revoking Weinstein's honorary degree. To have a Dean of a college defending Weinstein would be a contradiction of that revocation. Sullivan is tone deaf to continue defending Weinstein after the revocation.
3
A basic tenet of our legal system is that everyone deserves legal representation. A corollary is that attorneys do not endorse the alleged actions of the accused through representing them (just ask any public defender). Most people who disagree with Sullivan's representation of Harvey Weinstein are not attorneys, and so they simply don't understand/don't get it/are willfully blind. If they ARE attorneys and still do not agree with Dean Sullivan's representation, they are in the wrong profession.
The children and others who disagree need to do some serious self-reflection. If that doesn't work, just grow up.
6
And, it betrayed its students. It has a duty to educate those students and not kowtow to them. That is the deepest betrayal.
6
I suppose it raises the issue of whether there's anyone whose defense is not really consistent with being the Harvard Law dean. For example, one could successively defend a KKK leader accused of inciting a riot that resulted in the murder of a black child, (he needs a good lawyer) and defend Alabama's right to ban abortion (they'll need a good lawyer), and so on. (A) Would Randall Kennedy allow any combination of needy defense choices as being inconsistent with the Deanship? (B) Does it make a difference if the cases are taken on, after being named dean (academic freedom) or (C) if they are taken on before applying for Dean and part of the dean selection review (freedom of contracting on Harvard's part?)
If he was “expected to attend to the students as counselors, cheerleaders, impresarios and guardians,” his decision to represent a serial sexual criminal is disqualifying for the position.
3
@A Discordant Voice He is not accused of any sexual misconduct! He is a lawyer representing a client.
THAT IS WHAT LAWYERS DO!
2
@A Discordant Voice An accused criminal.
Strongly disagree. The hysterical framing here — we must defend even Harvey Weinstein or all principles are lost! — reminds me very much of the arguments GOP senators make as to why we can’t see Trump’s tax returns: it’s a matter of principle dontcha know.. just so happens to come up when it’s your Trumps and Weinsteins, not so much when it’s your Eric Garners, Philando Castiles, Trayvon Martins, or the millions sequestered away in our racist and corrupt penal system.
4
@Keef In cucamonga So if you are accuseed of a despicable crime (regardless of whether or not you did it) everyone should just presume you are guilty, including the lawyers, and refuse to represent you because they don't want your taint on them?
2
It is interesting to see the disparity between the positions taken by readers in the Readers Picks list and those chosen so far as NYT Picks. My hat is off to the readers in this case.
Lynch mob mentality is alive and well. Unfortunately, in these times of polarized politics and political correctness, the core principle that everybody deserves a legal defense and a fair day in court is all but gone. Innocent until proven guilty only applies as long as the public opinion doesn't override it. This is exactly what happened in Nazi Germany, before you knew it, entire groups had been prosecuted in the court of public opinion, then incarcerated based on fake laws, by politically motivated judges. Universities should know better. Students of universities should understand that. But here we are.
2
Is it too much to ask for a lawyer, a professor, a dean to have a moral compass?
3
Harvard flunked a very simple test. Yes, the law professor can represent a very despicable man. Did Harvard take a stand when Alan Dershowitz was on O.J.'s legal team?
6
Rakesh Khurana, Dean of Harvard College, needs to get the boot.
Good grief. John Adams, Harvard Class of 1755, defended the British soldiers against charges incurred in the Boston Massacre.
What a contrast.
5
I agree with Harvard.
3
Wow, the inmates are truly running the asylum.
6
All statues of John Adams must be pulled down. He defended the British troops involved in the Boston Massacre.
3
Pleeez, it the professor was white and privileged, no one would have cared
1
Come on Prof. Kennedy. You know darn well this is the inevitable result of the misguided socialist/social engineering promulgated by the likes of --Harvard itself. The Left is eating its own, just as happens in every leftist/socialist regime. Individual rights are antithetical to socialism, and that includes the presumption of innocence. Don't play dumb. You and your colleagues created this, wanted this, and now whine because you're the targets.
1
FYI Mr Kennedy is considered more conservative than liberal and his defense of Mr Sullivan here shows.
3
This decision has made Harvard look stupid. Our whole adversarial legal system ensures that even mass killers, never mind disgusting sex perverts, can get adequate representation. To punish this dean for representing his client - at the will of students still wet behind the ears no less - is utterly amazing and opens the venerable Harvard to derision.
6
Even the lowest of the low deserve legal counsel.
Harvard, have you no shame?
7
When one our staff lawyers visited Pul-e Charki prison in Kabul, a Taliban prisoner said to the young advocate: "I kill people like you." The lawyer said, "I defend people like you." One person blinded by violence and the other guided by the Rule of Law. Veritas.
6
Talk about being hoisted on your own petard. Let the mob rule!
1
A lynch mob mentality.
From Ted Cruz to Al Franken to Charles Schumer to Bernard Law to Jeffrey Skilling to Henry Kissinger, Harvard is hardly the institution has long been a stranger to the moral high-ground. On anything.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
4
@Rev. E. M. Camarena, PhD,
No one is calling for a lynching of the professor. The students are calling for recognition of the stark facts of sexual assault on campus and their legitimate fears for their own safety and right to live without sexual harassment, without fear of assault (25% of female students experience sexual assault and many more experience the humiliation of sexual harassment), and without psychological trauma oppressing their academic lives.
These are MORAL considerations, so easily ignored by male administrators and some professors, because, after all, these are "women's issues," of little or no concern to the privileged patriarchy. And, apparently, even a Reverend doctor can ignore these moral considerations because, again, they're only a matter of female autonomy.
4
@Mary C. An attorney is obligated to provide constitutional protections to any person. Can you not see where your argument leads?
2
@Mary C.: You are confusing two different things. The study and practice of morality is called ethics. The study and practice of law is jurisprudence.
Now you throw in feminism? Wow.
My spouse of 30 years was a highly successful defense attorney. Before that a prosecutor. I have had a ringside seat when it comes to justice. When people asked her "How can you defend guilty people?" her reply was simple: "Somebody has to keep the state honest."
When anyone interferes with the system to throw the accused into a position of disadvantage, such as denying an attorney, or intimidating lawyers who would defend that person - THAT is lynching - and you are promoting it. There are no two ways around that. I pity the people who will need a lawyer when these judgmental law students graduate and set up a practice.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
1
When I first heard this story I thought that barbarism, stupidity, and moral cowardice had openly triumphed at Harvard. Then all the parsing started, and my initial reaction was confirmed.
7
Snowflakes.
2
How "millennial" of Dean Rakesh Khurana and Harvard University. Pleased to read that they are right in tune with the times.
3
The rule of the mob, a prime example.
You can call it a little bit of conflict in the liberal paradise.
3
You're only good for your last action. Too bad. Would he defend Bill Cosby? Probably not. Then why defend Harvey?
@426131 Bill Cosby was entitled to a defense.
As a Harvard Kennedy School Alumnus, this situation in our collective civics is most compelling as I believe there is no absolute right or wrong in reference to both Harvard University and Dean Sullivan concerning the choice decision to revoke Sullivan’s Deanship. Good civics in any society is grounded within an ethos of service without fear or favour save truth must be preserved and respected regardless of personal private grievances. Robust social civics requires attention to the tough choices as citizens are entitled to a defence when allegations of malfeasance are directed to the citizen regardless of the pernicious nature of the allegations. What is important in all peoples who are vested with authority inclusive of responsibility is that of character virtue—as character virtue in the long term is that which matters profound. Dean Sullivan made an elective choice decision to participate in the defence of an individual charged with a series of pernicious allegations. A nation governed in a rule of law stricture is a nation not subject to arbitrary exclusions regardless of emotive feelings of some members of the nation who happen to take issue. My ardent hope is that both Harvard and Sullivan will learn from this episode as this moment is indeed a ‘teachable moment’.
2
Professor Sullivan and his wife might have seen this coming. He seems to have retained is position as a professor. While I understand the feelings of the students at the dorm, both he and his wife had faculty dean roles at Winthrop House. So no one with - issues - would be forced to consult with him in that role, as his wife could handle it(?), or maybe school student counselors?
Students need to understand the role of lawyers. Based on rule of law, every defendant is entitled to legal representation, a basic tenant of our judicial system.
I'm sorry if some students feel the situation could be "trauma inducing." Many of them live in a world of sheltered privilege now, but sooner or later will most likely end up in the - big bad world.
I understand that Harvard wants to satisfy the students & tuition paying parents. But just as many future would be student families may decide to skip Harvard for the treatment of Mr Sullivan as those that feel that - justice has been served (?) in this situation.
I'm with the 52 Law School faculty members that signed and sent the letter of support for Mr Sullivan.
There is the possibility that Dean Khurana was most likely trying to hang on to his own "job."
So much for the teachable moment...
3
Any law students involved should be immediately failed. Apparently they have utterly failed to learn the most basic principles. Everyone is entitled to a defense.
2
Isn't it obvious what's going on here? Predominantly white female students at Harvard are uncomfortable having a dormitory dean who is a black man representing an accused rapist. Does the phrase subliminal racism mean anything to you people?
6
Twenty bucks says this guy is a Jordan Peterson fan.
2
The irony here is that the Sixties/Seventies college generation fought to abolish the micro-control of students' lives by their colleges under the guise of "protecting" students. Now, students seem to be asking the schools to go back to the Fifties and institute a strict regime of in loco parentis.
I see this as one more reason to institute a universal draft: it would take a college generation sheltered in a cocoon, where they are free to expend all their energy worrying about microagressions, and show them there are much greater threats to their future. (As well, it would absolutely negate any legitimate reason to oppose an Equal Rights Amendment.)
You used to have to be intelligent to get into Harvard. Apparently current students are not expected to even understand the basics of the Bill of Rights, let alone our adversarial legal system, though I expect they would want to ensure there are publicly paid public defenders to represent the accused criminal of their choice i.e. anyone they agree with.
Given its huge endowment, one would have thought Harvard in an excellent position to defend the interplay of diverse thoughts and actions, which have been the bedrock of the enlightenment. Apparently, there is now well-ensconced at Harvard a generation of spineless or ignorant apparatchiks serving as the school's administrators.
Of course the real losers are the students, who will be in for a rude shock upon graduation.
6
I think it was Tolkien who posited once when writing about fairytales that youth has no need of grace--they like "justice" (whatever they seem that to be), because the young haven't lived long enough to understand that they need mercy. These children cannot look beyond themselves and *their* thoughts and feelings. I was taught--and it wasn't that long ago--that you can disagree vehemently with someone and both you and they could hold honorable positions. The BEDROCK of American justice is a right to legal representation in a court of law. That means even Satan has a right to an advocate, and that advocate is serving an honorable purpose. That children at a university with the exclusivity (supposedly for academic and intellectual excellence) do not understand this is....distressing. I can only (in reference to their callowness) pray that they never have to deal what here they sow.
4
Scrolling through the comments it seems that the racial angle is wholly missed. How many times does a black person, as high as a Harvard Law Dean (or maybe US President), or a low as the school janitor, need to be told that they make a certain fraction of the white population 'uncomfortable?' And how many times to we, collectively as a nation, bow to the 'comfort' of that fraction?
4
The comparison, as odious as it might be, ought to be with Dershowitz defending Jeffrey Epstein or OJ Simpson. And yet Dershowitz usually has the back of my alma mater's administration.
Harvard '64
3
Hypervictimization has gone viral at Harvard.
1
Liberals do not believe in fair legal representation and innocent until proven guilty.
They believe in guilty because I do not like you, and sentence first, verdict later. Or guilty because, well, just look at them.
The guy has the right to legal representation, that is the law. Let him have his day in court and then a jury of his peers can decide in the fate he deserves. But not if he ran afoul of Liberals, then he’s guilty and does not deserve a lawyer.
Harvard, place of Liberals, admission scandals and people who do not believe in the law of the land.
That’s embarrassing.
2
The Progressive Left is intolerant of the Weinsteins of the world.
@G. Stoya Yes! I completely and wholly embrace my
inner anti-rapist. It is my badge of honor to value survivors of violence over those who attempted to destroy them.
2
Ummm, I would hope everyone would be intolerant of the Weinsteins of the world.
2
Evidently this case was too small for Alan Dershowitz? Lawyers can represent anyone they want but they sell their respectability when they represent the immoral and unethical, and no pro bono work washes that stain away. The only real question here is why he lost his job and not Alan Dershowitz.
2
schadenfreude to see the Stanford of the East make such a huge gaffe
John Adams defended the British soldiers who fired on a civilians at the Boston Massacre, and, despite this unpopular representation, went on to become President. I guess Harvard will now disavow Adams as a worthy alumnus.
1
Agree with Michael Kelly.
Snowflakes parented by lawnmower parents who missed a very fine opportunity for enlightened discourse. It’s popular, these days, to be “offended.”
2
Harvard has jumped the shark here.
Nobody wants to see Weinstein evade justice, and it seems overwhelmingly likely he’s guilty.
The right to legal counsel is bedrock for our criminal justice system and a prominent, intellectual attorney has every right to uphold that precept by representing those most hated by society at large.
Pandering to those who dislike Mr. Sullivan’s decision—they do have every right to dislike his representation of Weinstein and voice disapproval—is a chilling blow to a fully functional justice system. This is especially true in an age when prominent public cases are so aggressively and ignorantly adjudicated in the media prior to formal legal proceedings.
Shame on you for your cowardice, Harvard.
5
Hm, I wonder why Trump will be re-elected?
2
Hypervictimization’s insatiable need for villains is just the latest paroxysm of witch-hunting at an institution founded by witch hunters.
1
Sounds like the activists who shout so loudly need a course on how the legal system works in a liberal democratic society.
After 34 years, it's time for you to retire!
1
So let's run a hypothetical.
There is a [real Dr.] Dr. Sullivan and he saves Weinstein's life after he is run down by an irate Harvard undergrad.
He is obviously doing his job and providing service to an individual independent of his moral assessment of that person and he is dismissed as Dean because he aided an accused rapist?
2
John Adams, a lawyer who defended in court the British troops accused of committing the Boston Massacre, is turning in his grave. College students generally are emotionally immature, so their waxing and waning outrage can be discounted. Harvard's administration, however, should know better. A great example of snowflakes, melting instead of teaching.
2
“An honorable lawyer will only defend innocent clients.”
— Alice In Wonderland
According to the mob, political correctness and identity politics rule!
'On May 16, 1966...the Central Committee of China’s Communist Party issued a circular that would come to be known by that very date. The nation “must not entrust” academics, experts, journalists, artist and other “representatives of the bourgeoisie who have sneaked into the Party” with “the work of leading the Cultural Revolution.”'
http://time.com/4327058/when-china-went-mad/
In this case, I'm surprised that the Harvard mob didn't take a cue from the Red Guards of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and demand that Sullivan be paraded around wearing a dunce cap.
1
Weinstein can buy a defense. And he should. Elsewhere.
5
This is not about Weinstein's right to representation--nobody denies that and the man has ample--the best money can buy.
This is about choice: Sullivan chose to represent somebody who is repugnant to the students with whom he interacts and supervises. They in turn chose to exercise their agency to have a dean appointed who does not collect fees from misogynists (Jews might rightly complain about blood money from Nazis; gays from a homophobe.)
Nobody though has been denied any rights. In fact the opposite: everyone is vocally and successfully exercising their rights.
5
I hope that some other distinguished school hires Ronald Sullivan right away. If he wound up at Chicago, Duke, Berkeley, or Yale, that would really rub Harvard's nose in this sordid, racially tinged, affair.
1
"Ronald Sullivan, a law professor who ran afoul of student activists"--these are dogmatic Cultural Marxist products from our public education systems and those to whom Harvard panders. Left eats its own--always does as Robespierre might have added. No surprise here.
2
Where is S.I. Hayakawa when you need him? He certainly would suggest that Mr. Khurana grow a backbone, if asked.
Mr. Kennedy's bravery is to applauded...Suffice to say they will be coming for him next, with pitchforks and torches in hand.
1
Reminds me of a lawyer named John Adams who felt strongly enough about justice to defend the British solders responsible for the Boston Massacre . Nothing really changes.
1
The MAGA army loves to see this squabble over dopey issues. It reemforces the incompetent pointy -headed liberal trope that they hold so dear. Personally I've found most Harvard students so poorly equipted, mentally, to think through anything but an academic problem. They are way to impressed with their own closed minds. Let's all keep shoooting ourselves in the foot and expect another 4 years of Trump because we are too rigid to come together with a ounce of intelligence. Please stop makin Tucker Carlson look right!
1
Soooo ... by this logic it appears that one soes not have benfit of the law if one is accused of a crime that is reprehensible according to a minority?
It does bring to mind A Man For All Season:
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons
2
Uh, no. Professor Sullivan is free to represent who he likes, including an alleged serial rapist like Weinstein. But others are free to publicly scorn him for his decision. And Harvard was right to remove him from his sensitive position looking after students. He is too compromised to do so.
Weinstein is not a political figure with controversial views or an indigent man who has no one else to defend him. Sullivan was likely seeking a high profile case and a sweet payday. Spare me his martyrdom.
4
@Sparky Thank you!
And, people, enough already with the To Kill a Mockingbird references. Harvey Weinstein is a filthy rich, powerful man who used his power to rape and abuse. Instead of To Kill a Mockingbird, the appropriate analogy should be to The Art of the Deal.
3
Harvard should be ashamed of itself. Ronald Sullivan has every right to represent any defendant and we should all be grateful when attorneys take on roles that are not popular. After all, the bottom line is that we are all innocent until proven otherwise.
But the larger issue here is that a few people continue to dominant the landscape at colleges across the country. We see that with the BDS movement and other anti-Israel events and we see that with other issues.
Political correctness is completely out of hand....Harvard, you should be ashamed of yourself.
3
Oh dear, the arrogance of the long-tenured.
Hate to tell you this, Mr. Kennedy, but sexual harassment is a serious matter to young people. Sullivan disqualified himself by agreeing to help Weinstein (why, why in the world did he decide to do that, anyway?). Harvard did not betray your friend; your friend betrayed his students.
4
"To Kill A Mockingbird" should be required reading for the children in the Harvard Law School.
3
Students, if you were to get any professor kicked out of Harvard I would have thought you would have sent Alan Dershowitz hiking. Someday you may realize that you were protesting a real lawyer. Dershowitz, not so much a lawyer but an attention magnet!
1
Perhaps Lori’s daughter should have applied to Harvard. It seems like intelligence is not required.
3
This decision by the Harvard dean is highly disappointing. It was certainly not expected from Harvard.
Dr. Kennedy is spot on here that : "One would hope that they would say that Harvard University defends — broadly — the right of people to express themselves aesthetically, ideologically, intellectually and professionally. One would hope that they would say that the acceptability of a faculty dean must rest upon the way in which he meets his duties, not on his personal beliefs or professional associations. One would hope, in short, that Harvard would seek to educate its students and not simply defer to vague apprehensions or pander to the imperatives of misguided rage."
Perhaps, it is time that ultimate authorities at Harvard review this decision, and perhaps it is time that those who led Harvard into this situation need to step aside if they believe in what Harvard traditions stand for.
5
Being a lawyer doesn't confer a badge of exclusion from exercising moral judgement. Lawyers refuse representation all the time, for many reasons.
For one - I really doubt the dean would take this case if it were pro bono...It's all about the Benjamins, not the principle of representation.
5
I am a Harvard graduate from the class of 2018. I agree with Professor Kennedy that our society needs lawyers who defend controversial clients. This leads me to agree that a lawyer’s reputation should not be harmed for the cases they choose to take on. But where I think Prof. Kennedy is mistaken is that he misses where the “central force” for Prof. Sullivan’s leaving came from. From what I’ve heard across the past few years from Winthrop students, it is that the Sullivans as deans maintained an environment at Winthrop that was toxic to students across the board.
People in this comment section are forgetting huge amounts of evidence pointing to this. From the Crimson reporting cited by Prof. Kennedy:
“In the decade since Sullivan and Robinson became faculty deans of Winthrop, the 11 other upperclassmen houses have had, on average, one or two House Administrators... In that period, Winthrop House had nine."
We as a society should not cast lawyers and the accused under one blanket, and we should presume innocence before a verdict. But we as a society should not be quick to open the case of the Sullivans' dismissal as central to the American discussion on criminal justice and millennial free speech. The core of the issue with the Sullivans' dismissal cannot be assumed to be his representation of Weinstein. That was an issue that pushed the Sullivans’ deanship past the precipice. It took a lot of work getting to that point. And anyone who is a student at Harvard knows this.
3
As a Harvard alum and an attorney, I am distressed to learn of Professor Sullivan's treatment by Dean Khurana. First, if true, Harvard (and Professor Sullivan) has just become another victim of the irrational, politically correct approach to life. So called "safe space" may be appropriate in certain circumstances but it does not represent the real world. The real world requires its citizens to navigate challenges. A university should be a place where the free exchange of ideas is not only welcomed, but expected. Second, our justice system is based on the accused having the access to fair defense. No matter how reviled the individual or the crime. John Adam's defense of soldiers in the Boston Massacre is just such an example. Attorney's that represent terror suspects in another. While most of us can pick and choose who we wish to represent, Harvard students can not expect a fair or level playing field in trials for "popular" and likable accused but not for those they deem "trauma-inducing." That is not what Harvard or our democracy demands.
7
A university should be a place of open discourse where disagreement should be encouraged and both sides of an argument need to be heard. The only time that should be questioned is when there has been an ethical or moral lapse.
That type of lapse has not happened in this case. Professor Sullivan should be reinstated.
4
It seems that Harvard University and it's student body do not support the "presumption of innocence" afforded defendants in our country.
That will need to be considered when reviewing employment applications and resumes.
3
John Adams, our second President, famously was the lawyer who defended the British soldiers in the trial over the Boston Massacre leading up to the Revolution. This is often cited for the principle that everyone deserves a lawyer, and a good one, and that it is honorable to be that lawyer.
However, there was nearly 30 years and long service in the Revolution between Adams doing that and his becoming President.
Mr. Sullivan is trying to walk through the door from doing one to doing the other.
The passions of public controversy have never been so passionless as to allow that. All that was between the one and the other for President Adams is also part of the lesson of that instance.
Passionate intensity is not fair nor right, but it is a constant. It has never been possible to disregard it.
2
@Mark Thomason
Excellent, thoughtful comment, Mark.
2
I have little doubt that Harvey is guilty. Nevertheless, he is entitled to the best legal advice he can get. The students should be careful about compromising the system as it is all that stands between them and tyranny .
4
I would expect the faculty of the Harvard Law School to have been more clear-eyed. They defended the absurd position that academic freedom includes being in loco parentis in a dorm. Just because the students were immature enough to make the mistake of using an obvious academic freedom -legally representing a reviled person - as part of their long-standing grievances does not mean that the position in question has anything to do with academic freedom. Indeed, n adult confidant in a dorm is a position where trust rather than intellectual independence is the relevant merit. By reacting in this way, the Law School has muddied the water for academic freedom and increased the damage for Dr. Sullivan.
1
So sounds like the deans are similar to the government, senators, house of representatives it’s really only a part time job.
Future dean need to be part time with part time benefits.
We have failed this generation of students who clearly do not understand that the kind of censure they are so want to impose upon those whose free exercise of Constitutionally protected rights of free speech and free association cause them to "feel unsafe" have most frequently in this nation's long history been used to limit the rights and freedoms of the historically disenfranchised -- that is, of them, or of people they stand in solidarity with. These freedoms made possible the transformation of the American landscape for those of us, and of them, who have been historically disenfranchised.
I also want to address the argument that such and such makes them feel "unsafe." This broadening of the notion of safety to include emotional safety is infantile. Among the skills we should develop on our way to adulthood is the ability to manage our own pain even in the face of real affront. We do need to think about the link between speech and violence anew, but it is imperative that we only limit free speech and free association that threatens to give rise to actual violence, not emotional violence. This is not to deny the real pain of living in the world as a disenfranchised person. I am such a person (black and female) and I know that pain well. But I also know that all of the freedoms I now enjoy were won by the exercise of the very First Amendment rights that these young people now seek to curtail. In limiting our enemy's freedom, we also limit our own.
7
I'm afraid that much of the suppression of free speech today is practiced by my liberal brethren. By claiming the moral high ground on a number of issues, they are dismissing, or outright suppressing, opinions or positions that they feel fall below their high perches.
Free speech means that people are allowed to express their views and positions, even if they are the opposite of yours. If you believe that you support free speech, then act that way.
9
Dr. Sullivan is a highly admirable and brilliant academic and lawyer. I have nothing but admiration for him in that capacity.
Speaking in my capacity as a University Professor, the position that Dr. Sullivan took as an adult confidant to a dorm (laughably called a "dean") is in loco parentis and has nothing to do with academic freedom. Having the confidence of the most vulnerable students is a reasonable and necessary criterion for keeping such a job.
Harvard ignored complaints and when they eventually investigated they were left with keeping an unsuitable confidant, or risk being wrongly perceived as endorsing an assault on legal and academic freedom: The students had recently and wrongly added the Weinstein representation as evidence for their grievance and that topic IS a matter of academic freedom. The fact that Harvard made the more difficult choice instead of hiding behind absurd claims of academic freedom for this position, suggests the students probably had a compelling point on the facts inside the dorm.
Either Dr. Sullivan should have seen his unsuitability for a dorm position or Harvard should have acted sooner so it did not become national news. The University made the right choice but paid the price for their delay.
11
I can't understand why any professor would want this role as dean of student dormitories. It seems such a thankless job. Maybe Harvard needs to hire professional social workers to serve in these positions, rather than faculty.
7
Here is where I disagree. If a doctor is about to be appointed to a high administrative academic position after having saved the life of a violent offender, perhaps someone who after assaulting a woman was shot by police while fleeing the crime scene, would students protest and would an administration capitulate to the demands.
1
Let's be honest. Sullivan's decision to defend Weinstein had nothing to do with upholding the principle that all defendants have a right to legal representation. It had to do with lucre, money, and presumably lots of it.
Harvard allows faculty to consult as long as that consulting and outside work does not take up so much time so as to take away from a faculty memeber's teaching and research commitments. Sullivan was absolutely free to make the decision to join Weinstein's defense team in his role as a faculty member as long as he adhered to Harvard's conflict of commitment guidelines.
But there is no principle of academic freedom or the practice of law that says that one's outside consulting gigs by definition would never conflict with one's role a Dean of an undergraduate college. In that role, everything you do can and will be used by the students of the college to infer your character and underlying values. So, while Professor Sullivan is free to go after the highly paid gig, he should have realized that the students in the college would subsequently have a very clear picture of his venality.
13
That Dean Sullivan did not consider the feelings of the women in Winthrop House under his care is, in my judgment, a dubious argument. It can be argued the other way, that in fact he did them a big favor by his example of hewing to principle when doing so is unpopular. If they have learned nothing from that, if they are incapable of learning from that, then they should apply for a transfer to another house.
This whole issue revolves around that pregnant word, "feelings." For today’s young people, their feelings are sacrosanct; the whole world revolves around their feelings; nothing else matters. We can see this in politics where the left wing of the Democratic Party, mostly young, insist on impeachment, despite the impossibility of conviction, and the almost certain damage to the party’s prospects in 2020. Their feelings need to assuaged; that’s all that counts.
And shame on the Harvard administrators for not standing up to such misplaced moral outrage. They should have defended the Dean stoutly. I suspect many of my fellow Harvard alums will shut their checkbooks after this.
8
The political damage of impeachment is far from “almost certain”. In fact, if Democrats stood up for principle over political calculation for once, they might find it politically advantageous. The party has been seriously losing membership since 2016.
@Cold Eye
On what do you base that opinion other than your "feelings"? 30 Democrats won seats held by Republicans in 2018. 23 Democrats took seats won by Trump in 2016.
All these newly elected Democrats had this in common: they won in conservative districts by focussing on local and economic issues, while avoiding divisive, national issues such as Trump, impeachment and the cultural issues dear to the left.
In so doing, they gave the Democrats a 23-seat majority in the House. These newly elected Democrats will all tell you the same thing: impeachment would drive away their conservative voters and thus deprive the Democrats of their majority.
1
Harvey Weinstein may stand disgraced before the American public, but he is nonetheless innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. Ronald Sullivan’s decision to defend Weinstein does not mean that he shares Weinstein’s values or even that he likes Weinstein but simply that he respects Weinstein’s rights to legal representation. I might feel less safe in my dormitory if Sullivan refused to defend Weinstein on the basis of his reputation, press reports, and hearsay, since that could amount to assuming guilt in the absence of legal process. I hope that Sullivan also offers his brilliant legal skills for the defense of individuals who cannot pay him what Weinstein can, and also that some proceeds of Sullivan’s earnings from this case might be donated to an organization that protects women and other vulnerable persons against harassment.
6
Why? Because (i) Sullivan is choosing to act as defense counsel for Weinstein, (ii) in that role, Sullivan is not obligated to pursue the truth, but to zealously advocate for his client using whatever legal defense he thinks most likely to secure acquittal or reduced sentence (e.g., blaming the victim, questioning the harm of Weinstein's actions or claiming a mere misunderstanding between Weinstein and his victims), (iii) the arguments made in Weinstein's case and the outcome of the case, are likely to give comfort (and possibly justification) to others who would/do commit similar offenses against women, (iv) the crimes of which Weinstein is accused are regularly committed on college campuses and are chronically inadequately addressed, and (v) a faculty member giving expression in any capacity to arguments intended to negate or mitigate charges of the type Weinstein is accused of, especially a faculty member responsible for acting as a trusted counselor students, presents a conflict of interest that is immediately evident to those students. Sullivan only has an obligation to Weinstein if he takes the case, and, irrespective of what kind of man he is or what is in his heart or how dedicated he is to "justice", his decision to represent Weinstein ensures that he must say and do things which will diminish students' confidence in him in his role as an advisor and advocate for the most vulnerable and injured among them. No surprise that an academic would fail to understand this.
8
By your logic, no one accused of murder (or any other heinous act, for that matter) deserves a fair trial or an advocate to represent them. Do you not think your liberalism may contain a whiff of authoritarianism?
1
Mr Kennedy's argument confuses beliefs with factual occurrences.
He argues that atheists, would be uncomfortable expressing their beliefs with a Christian dean.
That's a conversation with differing beliefs, not an actual occurrence, such as an assault.
Mr. Sullivan chose to defend a man who has multiple sexual assaults reported over decades, and who has vast resources to hire capable attorneys.
The defense will be to discredit the accusing women as liars, or mentally unstable, or drunk or using sex to gain favors, or incapable to distinguishing a pleasant sexual act from rape.
I would not trust that women reporting a rape or harassment to such an attorney would be handled appropriately or sensitively. Surely there are dozens of there options for
a man qualified to be "in loco parentis" to women.
I also note Mr Kennedy's description of students' complaints as "some are likely mere parroting."
This a patronizing and unfortunately common dismissal of women. He actually states, without support, that some protesting students, presumably including women can't think for themselves, say things they don't believe, or can't logically understand issues.
We have all heard that for decades, unfortunately and unbelievably, now from a Harvard representative.
13
Mr Kennedy's argument confuses beliefs with factual occurrences.
He argues that atheists, would be uncomfortable expressing their beliefs with a Christian dean.
That's a conversation with differing beliefs, not an actual occurrence, such as an assault.
Mr. Sullivan chose to defend a man who has multiple sexual assaults reported over decades, and who has vast resources to hire capable attorneys.
The defense will be to discredit the accusing women as liars, or mentally unstable, or drunk or using sex to gain favors, or incapable to distinguishing a pleasant sexual act from rape.
I would not trust that women reporting a rape or harassment to such an attorney would be handled appropriately or sensitively. Surely there are dozens of there options for
a man qualified to be "in loco parentis" to women.
I also note Mr Kennedy's description of students' complaints as "some are likely mere parroting."
This a patronizing and unfortunately common dismissal of women. He actually states, without support, that some protesting students, presumably including women can't think for themselves, say things they don't believe, or can't logically understand issues.
We have all heard that for decades, unfortunately and unbelievably, now from a Harvard representative.
3
If these Harvard students, who are supposedly among the most intelligent and definitely among the most privileged young people in this country, really feel threatened by the idea that the Dean who oversees their dormitory is contributing to the defense of a man charged with sexual violence, someone has done a lousy job of preparing them to survive in the real world. What on earth will they do when they find themselves living and working next to people who espouse values and ideas that differ from their own? Instead of removing the Deans the Harvard Administration should have turned this into a teaching moment and forced the students to actually address their concerns to the Dean directly, listen to his response, and find a way to resolve the situation through compromise. Those are among the skills a university education should teach.
7
Many wrongs don't make one right.
True, Mr Weinstein deserves a competent defense because he is innocent until proven guilty. Even if he is guilty, getting competent defense is not itself a crime.
Prof. Sullivan can certainly take the case. But there are many worthy cases out there. The Innocent Project can certainly use someone like Mr Sullivan. Why he enjoys defending controversial figures is mind boggling. He might be making a point when he does so once or twice. Making a habit for people who can pay is worrisome
Mr Sullivan was not just a dean. He was a house dean. He lived among these students. If students don't feel comfortable being with him in close quarter.
So is Harvard betraying the professor - and itself?
3
Harvey will get off. That's what the students can't stand. That's too bad for them.
2
From an non-lawyer: Why does Harvard allow its law faculty to take on private clients? Isn’t the faculty’s responsibility to teaching and scholarly research? (Mr. Sullivan is hardly the first Harvard Law faculty member who’s had a private - though limited - law practice.)
12
@janeva, For the experience. To show that they're not ivory tower dwellers.
Mr. Kennedy's words are those of a loyal friend. But his article misses the mark. It's likely (one hopes) that Mr. Sullivan anticipated and has accepted the blowback he received in choosing to take on Mr. Weinstein as a client. His roles as attorney and dean came into conflict, and he chose to advance one at the expense of the other.
It would be unreasonable to expect paying student-tenants under any dean's charge to subordinate their needs and expectations in service of the dean's professional ambition. It is immaterial whether Mr. Sullivan's professional zeal is righteous; what matters is whether he materially undermined his effectiveness as a counselor, cheerleader, impresario and and guardian for the students under his charge. To a sufficient number of students regarding a sufficiently serious matter, the university decided he did.
The university's decision is not a statement about the Mr. Sullivan's character or the value of criminal defense in our system of justice. It's merely a statement about what is required of deans at Harvard in 2019.
17
Sorry to harp but this original comment reminds me of another trite lawyerly bromide, " better a guilty person goes free than an innocent person be convicted" or something to that effect. I just wonder if that's ever been applied to someone without deep enough pockets to spend on a team of $1000/hour lawyers.
@Noah
People keep confusing the issue here. Mr. Sullivan's situation has nothing to do with whether Mr. Weinstein is entitled to representation. That's a red herring. And it has nothing to do with whether Mr. Sullivan is justified in choosing Mr. Weinstein as a client. That's also a red herring.
This only has to do with whether Mr. Sullivan's actions undermined his ability to serve as the house-dean for a group of Harvard students. His role there was as confidant and adviser. If the students who live in that house don't think he can perform that role given his extra-dean professional choices, and the university agrees or at least respects their wishes, then that's the end of it. His departure as house-dean says nothing about his character, his job as a professor, or his role as a criminal defense attorney.
2
One of the first things we were taught in Criminal Law 1 is that even "the hated" have a right to a defense, and that the current definition of "defense" is the effective assistance of cousel, per the Sixth Amendment.
And while attorneys are usually ideologically aligned with their clients, that is not always the case, nor is it required. Defending an odious person is a duty to justice and our Constitution, even if it means conflicting with one's own conscience and beliefs. This is because some day, who can predict who among us will fall among "the hated?"
9
Weinstein has an absolute right to a vigorous defense and the legal representation of his choice. The professor have every right to practice the law wherever he’s been admitted to the bat and to represent whomever he wishes. What no one has a right to is their current employment.
10
And that these top lawyers are billing $1000/hour or more is just the icing on top? It's like a radiation oncologist making $600k or more calling themself just a selfless caregiver. These are examples of business people, not warriors of conscious. The honorable thing would be to take on the role of a public defender or work pro bono. There are lots of people accused of awful things who desperately need representation but don't have Weinstein's money.
10
I was ready to jump in and register my disapproval of what Harvard decided regarding Professor Sullivan. I now think this is not a good "poster child" case for a pro or con in this case. Reading between and on the lines, I gather Professor Sullivan was not viewed with unalloyed fondness by the students. It is possible that this variable, as well as the choice to defend Weinstein. fueled the students' protest. I do agree that students can be way too politically correct and bully institutions into mistaken decisions. I can also understand conflating the defense role with personal bias. I truly hope the students do understand the role of a defense attorney in our justice system. The comments regarding the role of Dean and having an enriching private practice, as well as a Professorship, is very much to the point
3
Our system of justice, the one on which we all ultimately depend, does not require this professor, dean and lawyer to defend or represent only those who he has determined are innocent of the charges. In fact, our system of justice requires that he (and others like him) represent defendants regardless of any personal view of such defendant’s guilt or innocence. Students and individuals must understand this and that, but for the grace of God (or simply good fortune), any of us might one day require a defense against actions or beliefs that others find abhorrent - say, charges founded on concepts of what should or should not be free speech or the rightful exercise of religious freedom.
Glass houses come in a limitless number of shapes and sizes, and we must all be careful not to cast the first stone. Our democracy and our fundamental rights are fragile. If we are too quick to defend only the rights (or people) supported or approved by the majority, we will all eventually lose.
Our shared, fundamental rights must not be subject to the approval of the majority or to the criticism of the mob.
8
No one is stopping him from representing Weinstein or anyone else. He just cannot while retaining his current employment.
1
I am a Harvard Alum and respectfully disagree. Students should have say in who mentors and advises them at Harvard. The House Master/Faculty Dean position is not a right just because you sit on the faculty. If the students are uncomfortable with the faculty member chosen, their concerns should be heard and their interests should be more important than Sullivan's right to be a faculty dean. There is also a difference between doing pro bono work for the family of Michael Brown and getting paid big money to represent the Harvey Weinsteins of this world.
15
Mr. Sullivan has every right to serve as Mr. Weinstein’s legal counsel in his upcoming sex crimes trials. However, that does not automatically afford him the right to continue serving as a trusted faculty dean/counselor to Harvard students who may report sexual harassment and/or sexual assault crimes, especially if the majority of students residing at Winthrop House have already cast a no-confidence vote against him. Their physical and emotional safety, including their perceptions of safety, should be paramount. In short, Mr. Sullivan should have been much more sensitive and proactive in terms of avoiding this type of positional conflict.
12
Part of this is a disturbing trend of judging lawyers by the clients they represent, rather than the quality of their representation. Most lawyers do choose their clients, but criminal defendants have a constitutional right to counsel of their choosing, and there is a strong tradition of lawyers representing clients who may not have access to legal counsel for monetary or political reasons in both criminal and civil cases. Pro bono representation of plaintiffs/petitioners in the Guantanamo Bay cases is a good example of this. We are increasingly penalizing lawyers for supporting that tradition. A lot of confirmation hearings now involve a public discussion of which clients someone has represented, as if that paints their character, without any serious analysis of what exactly their representation consisted of. In the Nipsey Hussle case, Chris Darden was recently forced to step down in defending his client because of death threats to his family. Obviously, that's different from Harvard students protesting a faculty dean, but they are emblematic of the same problem. Are we comfortable saying that, to be eligible for future positions, lawyers are only able to represent clients that will not tarnish their reputations? If we adopt that position, are we sure that we will continue to protect the constitutional right to counsel?
6
As an alum and someone in contact with current students, I honestly don't think this would have happened if Robinson hadn't been black. For most involved it's probably not overt racism, but rather: they want to express themselves on issues through protest, and it's intensely satisfying if the protest is successful. But they also can intuit that victory is harder when the target is socially protected, and easier when the target is weaker and less socially protected. That's why they doubled down on this one - they knew Sullivan was socially marginal in many ways and it made them more "empowered" to take him down. I think this dynamic is why we see so many racially disparate outcomes throughout our society.
2
@Peter R Mitchell, Knowing Harvard as I do, it's got nothing to do with race.
2
Turn the fee over to the house, use the defense as an educational experience for the students by holding moot
courts or debates on the some of the related issues. This would have worked, but a tenured law professor making a
big fee for himself is hardly compatible with his duty to the university. It would be unacceptable at other major law schools.
7
If a law student at Harvard were sexually harassed or assaulted, her dean would be one of the people she would seek help from. If said dean was defending the most famous rapist in the country, it might make students less likely to seek them out for help in such scenarios, thus interfering with their ability to do their job. Harvard didn't fire Ronald Sullivan. He's still a tenured law professor at the most respected school in the country. They're simply asking him to recuse himself because of a conflict of interest. What's wrong with that?
13
Such an interesting discussion. Like the free speech one also currently undergoing scrutiny. I believe in free speech and I believe in the right to a defense. Dos it need to be further broken down? Perhaps and I would love to have this taken over to a deep dive by the NY Times, The Daily?
The “endangered” students should get a medal from President Trump and FoxNews for giving them more evidence that their rantings against political correctness and the intolerance of liberal institutions is warranted. These students and the administrators who caved in to their absurd demands are, in effect, campaign workers for Trump and his ilk. Way to choose your battles, best and brightest.
9
A few years ago I was working with a social worker who represented child molesters in government settings--such as applying for housing grants. She said to me that her friends and colleagues all asked why she would want to represent such people. Her response was that she detested a child molester as much as anyone else does, but they are people, and everyone should be guaranteed their rights.
7
As always, the Revolution will eat its own.
9
When I was in my early twenties, I saw the movie « Reversal of Fortune » about the Claus Von Bulow case. I’ve never forgotten the impassioned speech delivered by Ron Silver, portraying Alan Dershowitz. He explained that everyone deserved a defense, even the accused who seemed guilty beyond reasonable doubt, because having a defendant is the basis of a democratic legal system. It made me understand why defense lawyers can and should represent the most despicable criminals.
If Mr. Weinstein is found guilty without having proper legal representation, how will justice be really served? Do we want our courts to operate like the ones in China, Saudi Arabia or North Korea?
Harvard’s decision is absurd and unworthy of an institution of higher learning. I wonder how Mr. Dershowitz who, to my knowledge, is still a professor at Harvard’s law school, feels about this.
11
A cynic might say, Harvard, like all universities is a business, and ousting an unpopular employee is just good customer service.
5
Wouldn't it be incredibly educational for students if Dean Sullivan defended Weinstein and then was able to present the case as a rich case study in class? One in which he has personal experience?!
2
@Rrkr These particular students are not in Sullivan's class, He is in the dorm they live in. Why would they want to be distracted by a case study suitable for law students (who by the way are not undergraduates)?
4
This article and the pearl-clutching comments about defending Weinstein miss the point entirely. Sullivan and Robinson created a hostile work environment to staff (who are often Harvard students themselves) entirely separate from Sullivan's work as a lawyer. He and his wife fomented a culture of personal loyalty to themselves, not their mission as Faculty Deans in service to students and the College. This culture started with their approach to staff, but inevitably trickled down into the relationship that students had with their House leadership. They are simply bad (and alarmingly vindictive) bosses, and thus poor fits for being Faculty Deans. They haven't deserved being re-hired for years.
This blurb from the Harvard Crimson is illustrative:
"In the decade since Sullivan and Robinson became faculty deans of Winthrop, the 11 other upperclassmen houses have had, on average, one or two House Administrators. From 2010 to 2018, three houses had one House Administrator and five had two... In that period, Winthrop House had nine."
For a much more accurate account as to why there is so much pressure now, I recommend the student reporting in the Harvard Crimson's article "‘With Us or Against Us’: Current, Former Winthrop Affiliates Say Faculty Deans Created a Toxic Environment Stretching Back Years
Since 2016, more than a dozen Winthrop tutors, students, and staff have brought concerns about Sullivan and Robinson to College administrators in meetings, emails, and reports."
12
This decision undermines both the oath attorneys take and the Constitutional rights attorneys swear to uphold, and demonstrates that Harvard speaks a better game than it actually plays when it takes the field. In its interest in quelling public criticism, it actually demonstrates its lack of confidence in and commitment to the system of law. On the scale of justice that Harvard uses, a jury that will be asked to judge Harvey Weinstein and the right of every accused defendant to be represented by competent counsel and the lawyer's first duty to undertake representation when qualified to do so without regard to public criticism or other personal considerations is pushed aside for short-term convenience.
This is an example of short-term thinking at its worst. Harvard wants all to believe that they are in the forefront of supporting all sorts of civil liberties and rights, and yet, in case after case, it only falls in step when the society leaves it no other choice. This is a college that didn't admit women to Lamont Library until 1967, didn't award a Harvard degree to women until 1963 to Radcliff grads, and seems proud of the fact that around 6% of its entrance class is African American, allowing Drew Gilpin to declare that the new college had the diversity of a symphony orchestra. What?
Dean Khurana should engage in some very deep thinking about his short-term decisions which time will prove undermines the respect for law and Constitutional rights.
4
Prof. Kennedy's comment regarding Prof. Sullivan's representation of Hernandez directly opposes his point: no one is declaring that Weinstein does not deserve representation, simply that Sullivan's role as faculty dean—the responsibilities of which include, "creating a safe, fun, supportive environment in which students can pursue their collegiate ambitions"—is directly in conflict with his choice to represent Weinstein. Students did not protest when he chose to rep. a convicted murderer, as the act of providing counsel did not impact his ability to foster a safe environment in Winthrop; however, the choice to rep. Weinstein—as Sullivan is, I believe, the first point of contact in Title IX filings—bears directly on that ability, which seems at the core of the purpose of Dean.
As scathing as the tone of this article was towards the students who were rightly calling for the spaces they deserve, a safe environment is pivotal to students' abilities to freely engage in their collegiate endeavors.
Just as those who cite first amendment rights fail to recognize that yes, they are free to say whatever they'd like—as long as they are open to dealing with the consequences of their words, Sullivan, and those who stand with him, fail to realize that he is free to represent whomever he so chooses—as long as he accepts the implications of his CHOICE to represent Weinstein.
Weinstein, without a doubt, deserves legal representation. But does it need to be by Sullivan? Absolutely not.
8
People saying that Weinstein had his pick of lawyers and that Mr. Sullivan didn't have to be one of them are missing the point. If Sullivan can be dismissed from his post as faculty dean, what professional repercussions might face other attorneys who dare to represent Weinstein? Sullivan's representation made the point that no client is too unpopular or too despicable to deserve a full and vigorous defense in our system of justice. That principle is not self-executing. Lawyers uphold it through individual choices like Sullivan's, one case at a time. And we erode it every time we stigmatize lawyers for those choices, as Harvard surely did here.
7
The essential content of these criticisms of Sullivan is surely
this: that when a lawyer represents someone charged with
a crime he is implicitly expressing approval -- or at least
a lack of sufficiently vigorous condemnation -- of that crime.
What puzzles me is , how did people holding such a view get
into Harvard? I would have thought you would have to
interview elementary school children before you could find
people that ignorant of the principles of our legal system.
8
Kennedy asserts that it is " inappropriate for a faculty dean to defend a person reviled by a substantial number of students"...That statement fails to take note that this person ( Weinstein) is reviled by far far more than a "substantial number of students"...I suspect that he is reviled by a substantial and far greater number of Americans and others around the world. Weinstein may deserve legal counsel, but not the support of Harvard's Faculty of Law
4
Why assume that Harvard's law faculty support a defendant because a member represents him? That is a fallacious conclusion.
1
If Professor Sullivan were defending one of Weinstein's accusers, would we worry about the potential impact this would have on any residents of the dorm who were themselves accused of sexual harassment?
5
Bravo Professor Kennedy, bravo. It's certainly a sad time for a once proud and storied educational institution which has surrendered to political correctness run amuck. We can only hope that they don't come looking for you and your 51 colleagues who had the courage to stand-up
6
Its funny but most of the Ivy league schools don't seem like they are very good schools anymore.
4
We are becoming the country depicted in Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron", where equality is legislated: dancers have to wear weights, keen-visioned must wear blinders, etc. The tender sensitivities cultivated by some does not excuse the excessive castigation before conviction, the accusation is the verdict compulsion.
In this country we are not convicted by innuendo: even a Weinstein deserves representation. If somehow you feel threatened by an exemplary attorney willing to stand up for principle, you don't need "a safe place", you need to stay home or grow a backbone.
6
Mr. Sullivan defending Mr. Weinstein is not the issue here, the issue is since he is a dean and would be dealing with sexual harassment and rape claims on campus, he should not have been involved in defending Weinstein since it's a huge conflict of interest.
4
I'm still waiting for an explanation of why Harvard pushed Lawrence Summers out of its presidency because he dared to suggest there might be inherent differences between males and females. Let's talk about the open and enlightened academy when it meets political correctness.
3
Our universities have lost their way and our country suffers because of it.
4
A lot of commenters here questioning why Sullivan would choose to take the case, or why he needed the money, are seriously missing the point. Sullivan doesn't owe ANYBODY an explanation for who he represents, any more than a surgeon or therapist would for treating certain patients. His choice of clients is irrelevant to his personal beliefs, or his fitness to be Dean. Removing him as Dean is pure, blatant retaliation for representing an unpopular client - for just doing his job.
5
Doesn't this undermine the entire profession?
1
As a very senior lawyer, people need to understand that, above all, we serve the system of law. Our clients’ interests ALWAYS come second to that. And by doing that we serve EVERYBODY: including stupid students at Harvard, who sound like they don’t belong at Harvard - or Harvard doesn’t belong among the ranks of universities.
Upholding the rule of law ranks first, second, and third as the priority of all lawyers, and should have the same priority among everyone else. And defending people at law is the key indicator of what separates us from all the tinpot dictators of history and the world. Instead of buckling to these students - who, alarmingly, Harvard probably considers to be future leaders - Harvard would do well to give them an education in civics. And make that compulsory.
7
@Dave I guess if I were a colleague of Sullivan's I would resent that his moonlighting law gig takes precedence three times over his responsibilities as a faculty member. Why take a professorial position if you believe the law is paramount in one's life. Can a lawyer serve two masters?
1
@BLD
Many law school professors also act as consultants to law firms or stay involved in the law. I see nothing wrong with that because it ensures the person is up to date with practical practice. It’s so common where I’m from no-one would bat an eye-lid over it. In fact, if you don’t retain some form of practice while engaged in academia, even as just a consultant, that would raise questions about you.
Kennedy: "... Ronald Sullivan, a law professor who ran afoul of student activists enraged that he was willing to represent Harvey Weinstein."
I had to search out a Crimson article to find out that Sullivan was RETAINED by Weinstein. That means that Sullivan is getting PAID. If Sullivan had his own law practice that would be fine, but Sullivan already has a job as a Harvard law professor.
There is a conflict of interest here: While Sullivan is working on Weinstein's case, he is not thinking about how to be a better teacher. Indeed, it is hard to see how Harvard's students benefit from Sullivan representing Weinstein.
8
Mr. Sullivan is a tenured professor at Harvard Law School, which pays him a generous salary. He is also a defense lawyer capable of earning significant sums defending wealthy clients. No one is suggesting that he should be fired from the law school or that as a member of the law school faculty, he should not be allowed to supplement his generous income by representing wealthy clients. But to suggest that the clients whom he chooses to represent should be of no concern to the students in Winthrop House is ... well ... absurd. Many pay a great deal to attend Harvard University. If they don't want Sullivan and his wife to be their "dorm parents" (which is itself an absurd concept in this day and age) because he has chosen to accept an enormous fee representing an accused rapist, that is their right.
5
So, is a medical school dean supposed to deny treatment to, say, Dylann Roof? Did we forget that John Adams represented British soldiers in the Boston Massacre?
3
@vinny Is the medical school dean on call at a hospital?
1
Harvard caved in the face of adolescent tantrums and tizzy-fits. I'm reminded of "Lord of the Flies".
3
Everyone is entitled to a defense. Harvey Weinstein is entitled to a Public Defender. Just because he can afford a Harvard attorney doesn't mean that a Harvard attorney should take the case. Ronald Sullivan took the case for the money and his self aggrandizement. He is representative of what is wrong with the legal profession.
4
This is why you never give into the mob. When people say "people are outraged", it means they are and they are projecting their virtues/feelings onto others. People should be sick and tired of this nonsense, but until you make a stand, people will continue the faux outrage.
3
Good exemple that the USA is not really real democracy
3
@sym Hint: It's a Republic.
2
If there is no evidence or history of Professor Sullivan not taking student complains on sexual harassment seriously or committing egregious acts of sexual harassment himself, then Harvard made the wrong choice in firing him. He is a lawyer by profession, Harvard presumably knew this when it hired him and that means he has the right and choice to take on whichever clients he wants to--regardless of how heinous the crime they committed. Just because he's defending Weinstein doesn't mean he believes that sexual harassment or rape is okay. By that measure, are we saying that all lawyers who choose to defend people on trial for murder think that murder is ok? That logic doesn't add up. He can have his personal beliefs that are completely opposite of what his professional beliefs are. If he does have a history of not taking student claims seriously or have been found guilty of sexual harassment himself, then I completely agree with Harvard's decision to fire him but it certainly shouldn't solely be based on whether he is a lawyer on Weinstein's team. If Harvard students don't understand the difference, then I'm not sure what they're learning at Harvard because it certainly doesn't seem like critical thinking.
4
Can't believe I'm agreeing with Randall Kennedy - a paradoxically encouraging by-product of this terrible mistake by Harvard.
Feeling "uncomfortable" came before feeling "unsafe" but it has a distinct historical ring.
I remember students reviewing other students' performances in client counseling at Nebraska Law back in the '80's, when they just didn't feel as comfortable with the brilliant black woman with her obviously gay partner as they did with Ken and Barbie.
How shallow, to think that a person who defends a predator is LESS attuned to the emotional complexities of sexual predation. How ignorant about law, and lawyers, and the right to an advocate, and empathy.
4
...Suppose atheist students claimed that they did not feel “safe” confiding in a faculty dean who was an outspoken Christian or if conservative students claimed that they did not feel “safe” confiding in a faculty dean who was a prominent leftist.
The crux of the issue. Well written.
1
This is a tale of bullying. Harvard administrators know that the student critics are anti-liberal bullies. Well-paid university administrators are afraid of bullies. Professor Sullivan and Ms. Robinson are now. Dean Khurana fears being next.
2
Does Sullivan represent Weinstein because he believes the man is innocent, or perhaps because the law is in need of improvement? Does he believe Weinstein been unjustly treated?
Or, does Sullivan defend him because of the money? How much is Sullivan paid for his work?
If Sullivan works for free and still wants to defend Weinstein then I won’t object. If he makes some large sum like $500 an hour (this is 1 million a year with 40 hour work weeks) then I object.
Let’s see Sullivan’s motivations and then judge him.
The love of money (and a willingness to pursue it above all else) is not a value system I want espoused by my college dean.
1
I am not a lawyer, but this seems like an open-and-shut case. Every defendant, no matter how heinous, deserves to have legal counsel when he is on trial. Without legal representation, innocent defendants get convicted, and guilty defendants get railroaded. I don't understand how the students or the university can fail to understand this straightforward issue.
3
Mr. Kennedy's point is obvious, that the lawyer is not responsible for what his client may or may not have done, but it eludes many people, including inside the Times itself, as we see in the choice of Times picks (although to their credit, most commenters here grasp the issue -- but a large minority, allegedly well-educated, do not).
1
Professor Kennedy raises a number of good points. One of the most important may be what kind of atmosphere at Winthrop House did Mr. Sullivan create? Was it truly an open atmosphere where all residents felt able to live, thrive and take part in any activity offered? If he did, Harvard's decision should be denounced as-among other things-an active assault on academic liberty and an attack against freedom of thought and liberty-those being a necessary part of any law school particularly the one Mr. Sullivan was being considered to head. But if Mr. Sullivan's actions showed discrimination against some of his charges and a degradation in the climate of the dorm, then Harvard should come out directly and plainly say that is the reason he is denied the law school deanship.
One last thought: is this a veiled attack on Mr. Sullivan because he would be Harvard's first non-white law school dean? Not all charges and accusations of this type are only what they purport to be.
I agree, and as a Harvard undergraduate alum, I voiced my objections online in response to postings by the folks behind this campaign. I think it's frankly embarrassing - as embarrassing as Jared Kushner buying himself a place at Harvard, or Harvard instituting quotas for Asians. I'm heading up to my reunion next weekend, and I'm sure this is what we'll all be talking about.
As a student and employee at Harvard some years ago, I heard many people say, "The more you know Harvard, the less you like it." I share this view.
1
Pay Attention. We are all witnesses to the end of democracy in the United States. Both sides of the political spectrum have given up on liberal democratic values (this has been happening on the right since 1994 and has been in full swing on the left since 2014 with the destruction of Brendan Eich for crimes against the left). Every time a college or a corporation gives in to the undemocratic demands of social justice warriors, we make it a little easier to accept the end of the Republic. Who needs democracy when we can shame people into submission.
The takeover will come from the right, but they will use leftist tropes to co-opt that side. Enemies of the state will be accused of sexual harassment or racism or of just being insufficiently woke and they will be sent to camps or disappeared.
Norms of decency in our political life have been breaking down on both sides. Today, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand declared that she would not appoint a nominee to the Supreme Court unless he/she pledged she wouldn’t overturn Roe breaking the norm against Presidents using litmus tests to select judges. She did this to boost her poll numbers just like Trump, but I don’t think the Times, or The New Yorker will be decrying her action any time soon. She’s on our side.
We have gone from slippery slope to water slide and tyranny waits for us at the bottom of the trash heap.
2
The students are adults. The deans are not their parents. The House is not their "safe space." You defenders of this nonsense are infantilizing the students, and they are infantilizing themselves. All the rights of adults but none of the obligations (including the social obligations of maturity, reason and restraint). Who will protect them from unhappy thoughts and "trauma" in a couple of years?
2
Are these same students also calling for the firing of Alan Dershowitz, also a Harvard law professor, who despite a long career defending civil rights, is now offering a full throated defense of Donald Trump? These students may have been well taught, but they learned nothing.
1
For the first time, I am ashamed because of this controversy to be a Harvard Law graduate. These students are confusing their duty as lawyers with their political preferences. As much as I detest Weinstein, he cannot be deprived of the right to competent legal representation.
2
No one is stopping Prof. Sullivan from representing Weinstein. Who is to say it makes him suitable as a faculty dean? The students he is supposed to inspire don't think so. So on with the Weinstein case and less ado about the appointment as dean. Replace "Faculty Dean's Office" with "Harvey Weinstein" in the Winthrop message quoted below and see how awful it sounds.
"The Faculty Deans' Office sits at the very center of Winthrop House life. Faculty Deans ______ and __________ provide leadership on many fronts, setting the tone for House spirit."
2
The fundamental ignorance and disrespect on the part of these Harvard students for the principles of the legal system in the US is absolutely terrifying. They join the rank of Donald Trump in the decline and destruction of American jurisprudence, the most important pillar of democracy. They should come live in society that has no jurisprudence and see how well that works for their privileged lives.
1
At best this piece comes off as naive in acting as though the concerns of the students are unfounded.
A reality of the situation which is being ignored here is that sexual predation on college campuses is rampant, and you are suggesting that victims or those who empathize with them should feel trusting of a person who chose to be paid a huge amount of money to ignore the preponderance of evidence and countless credible allegations against Weinstein. Moreover, in doing so, he participated in the legal culture of victim character assassination which has made the search for justice toxic to women.
You can agree or disagree with the ultimate decision of the University, but there are very real and understandable reasons why these actions would elicit strong feelings of distress and distrust within the student body.
4
@David "sexual predation on college campuses is rampant" Not to be nit picky, but do you have any actual evidence for this claim? The 1 in 5 nonsense is long discredited. No doubt rape occurs. But how "rampant" is this felony? Where are the cops? If murder was "rampant" on college campuses, presumably cops would be sweeping the campus.
1
@keith
Here's one of many sources you could check if you were so inclined.
"Since college entry, 22% of students reported experiencing at least one incident of sexual assault" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5695602/
There's plenty of research. 1 in 5 represents assault, not exlcusively rape, and is fairly close to their finding.
The problems with reporting and policing assault are pretty easy to understand and read about. It's not comparable to murder in that way- as you could tell from the Weinstein discourse- there's a lot of shame and discrediting which takes place and the toll of reporting along with the difficulty of conviction means that of course there's a different outcome to "rampant murder" as you're proposing.
1
Your arguments are specious and hypothetical. He has, by supporting a man widely condemned, with evidence, simply shown that he has no ethics or scruples or really no opinion regarding values adhered to by a majority of people. Why on earth would any school support the deanship of a professor who has angered the very population of students he seeks to counsel and lead? Certainly Harvard made not the just the right decision to listen to it’s students. Why 52 professors signed on is a mystery. Their motives certainly questionable. Do they not believe in empowering women? Are they the kinds who believe all men are innocent? Do they believe as a lawyer you must represent the most heinous criminals in order to prove you are amazing at your practice? I question 52 professors on whether their idea of teaching involves ethics, honesty and goodwill towards fellow humans, especially women. Shame on those professors who seem to think teaching is a profession that seems divorced from those to whom they impart knowledge. Perhaps, Harvard should invite them to leave en mass. I am sure there are plenty of fantastic young professors in the wings who can more fill their shoes.
1
@Meena
My job is to zealously represent my clients in our adversarial system of justice. It is not show empathy and goodwill to anyone.
Defense lawyers defend accused criminals...it's their job, and a necessary part of the judicial system. I'm quite sure there are faculty at many of the universities around our country who have defended murderers and rapists in court. That definitely does not mean they espouse those acts. They are upholding and promoting the integrity of our judicial system (a cause that those same protesting students likely support).
Harvard's decision does not seem right, but it also isn't totally black and white. By representing Weinstein, Sullivan would likely be bringing in a big paycheck (in a way profiting off of Weinstein's wrongdoings), and he does have the ability to choose who he represents. But still, it is his prerogative as a lawyer to do so. I would love to hear Sullivan's reasoning for taking the case.
The students aren't to be blamed for their passion to have Sullivan fired; they have every right to voice their position. The decision though to fire a tenured professor and lawyer for the crime of representing "the accused" lies squarely with a Cowardly Harvard administration.
1